James Hansen replies to the deceitful IBD editorial:

The latest swift-boating (unless there is a new one among seven
unanswered calls on my cell) is the whacko claim that I received
$720,000.00 from George Soros. Here is the real deal, with the order
of things as well as I can remember without wasting even more time
digging into papers and records.

Sometime after giving a potentially provocative interview to Sixty
Minutes, but before it aired, I tried to get legal advice on my rights
of free speech. I made two or three attempts to contact people at
Freedom Forum, who I had given permission to use a quote (something
like “in my thirty-some years in the government, I have never seen
anything like the present restrictions on the flow of information from
scientists to the public”) on their calendar. I wanted to know where
I could get, preferably inexpensive, legal advice. Never got a reply.

But then I received a call from the President of the Government
Accountability Project (GAP) telling me that I had won the Ridenaur
Award (including a moderate amount of cash — $10,000 I believe; the
award is named for the guy who exposed the Viet Nam My Lai massacre),
and offering pro bono legal advice. I agreed to accept the latter
(temporarily), signing something to let them represent me (which had
an escape clause that I later exercised).

I started to get the feeling that there may be expectations (strings)
coming with the award, and I was concerned that it may create the
appearance that I had spoken out about government censorship for the
sake of the $. So I called the President of GAP, asking how the
nomination process worked and who made the selection. He mentioned
that he either nominated or selected me. So I declined the award, but
I continued to accept pro bono legal advice for a while.

The principal thing that they provided was the attached letter to
NASA. This letter shows me why scientists drive 1995 Hondas and
lawyers drive Mercedes. I have a feeling that the reader of that
letter had at least one extra gulp of coffee that morning.

Meanwhile Steinn Sigurðsson investigated the IBD claims himself:

So: Hansen got pro-bono legal advice, and possibly some media advice (though I doubt he needs that, he’ll have his own AddressBook of contacts) from GAP, which got some of its funding (about 15%) from OSI, including $100k specifically to assist Science and Engineering whistleblowers. The Soros Foundation, of which OSI is part, spend $400 million in 2006.

One can find all this online in 30 seconds through Google.

Yet IBD considers this a “threat to democracy” because these organizations seek to affect public opinion and “lack transparency”.

Do IBD op-ed columns attempt to affect public opinion?
The column was not signed, btw.

I thought Investor’s Business Daily approved of rich people being allowed to spend their money however they liked?

I should note that an additional seven seconds with Google showed that the Government Accountability Project didn’t just reveal their relationship to Hansen, they sent out Press Releases SHOUTING this fact to the world

Contrast this with NewsBusters (part of Media Research Center), who have helped lead the swift boating of Hansen. They sure seem to keep very quiet about the hundreds of thousands of dollars MRC has received from Exxon, don’t they?

Update: Robert McClure talked to GAP and OSI:

GAP’s president Louis Clark and Rick Piltz, director of GAP’s climate science watch program, say they helped Hansen in about February to April of 2006. Their 15-page grant proposal to the Open Society Institute in late July of that year had 15 lines that referred to Hansen, with seven lines recounting what they’d already done for him and two more that said they “remain available to defend Dr. Jim Hansen’s job and to offer legal advice upon request.” Said Clark:

This is happening because it’s much easier to attack the messenger than it is to actually deal with and come to terms with what his message is. Some people have a vested interest in not dealing with the concerns he has raised.

Clark had a minor correction to Hansen’s account: Hansen called them about representation after having been told he was nominated for the Ridenaur Award, rather than GAP calling Hansen to offer counsel.

Amy Weil, a spokeswoman for the Open Society Institute, e-mailed to say her institute is non-partisan and has never given any money to Hansen, adding:

However, OSI does support whistleblower protection agencies and we applaud Dr. Hansen for exposing NASA’s attempts to silence his call for prompt reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

Comments

  1. #1 ben
    September 28, 2007

    Care to define “swiftboating”? In my opinion, what happened to Kerry was legitimate, and tough bananas for his jerky past.

  2. #2 Tim Lambert
    September 28, 2007

    Yeah, [Kerry was such a jerk](http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp):

    >Kerry earned his Silver Star on 28 February 1969, when he beached his craft and jumped off it with an M-16 rifle in hand to chase and shoot a guerrilla who was running into position to launch a B-40 rocket at Kerry’s boat. Contrary to the account quoted above, Kerry did not shoot a “Charlie” who had “fired at the boat and missed,” whose “rocket launcher was empty,” and who was “already dead or dying” after being “knocked down with a .50 caliber round.” Kerry’s boat had been hit by a rocket fired by someone else — the guerrilla in question was still armed with a live B-40 and had only been clipped in the leg; when the guerrilla got up to run, Kerry assumed he was getting into position to launch a rocket and shot him

  3. #3 Calton Bolick
    September 28, 2007

    Care to define “swiftboating”

    Given the rest of your post, I assume that would be a complete waste of time.

  4. #4 ben
    September 28, 2007

    Nice, I see in that piece that not a single shred from his detractors appears.

    Besides that, I’m referring to Kerry’s B.S. throwing of “his” medals onto the White House lawn, and his lies about Cambodia and the other crap about the raping, pillaging and cutting off of ears etc. What a joke.

  5. #5 sod
    September 28, 2007

    Tim, you still have not fully understood how it works!

    telling LIES about Kerry s military career: GOOD

    telling the TRUTH about the petraeus report: BAD

    http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2007/09/fuzzy-numbers-a.html

    and in the same way:

    Exxon funding “sceptic” global warming messages: GOOD.

    Soros, giving money (and much less money than claimed) to a whistleblower organisation, who write a single letter for Hansen (to defend him from a political appointee, who faked his resumee..), while Hansen declines to take money directly from them: BAD.

    wow, the term WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING is getting a whole new meaning. was this a concerted action by D. Cheney and Jc?

    ps: anyone got some time at hand, to check the right wing blogs that Tim had linked to for some corrections and updates? surely they will NOT let all those FALSE claims stand as they were posted?!?

    pps: note to self: if ever forming a political party, make the dimwits your electoral base!

  6. #6 ben
    September 28, 2007

    Not to mention that I’ve lost a lot of respect for Snopes since they came out with this characterization of Reagan’s “If you’ve seen one Redwood, you’ve seen them all” as a paraphrase. Lame.

  7. #7 JB
    September 28, 2007

    Ben said” what happened to Kerry was legitimate, and tough bananas for his jerky past.”

    How do you know, Ben?

    Were you THERE or did you talk to the people who were?

    Do you know more about what happened than the Navy officers who investigated and awarded Kerry the Silver Star?

    Have you ever been in combat?

    Know what it’s like to be fired upon?

    If so, ever received any commendations for valor?

  8. #8 Jc
    September 28, 2007

    Tim

    I think you have to research that “blast” of courage(pun intended) from the US senate’s resident gigolo showed getting outta the boat ( Ok I’m jealous he marries rich gals). From what I recall reading he received a severe reprimand for not following proper procedures in the event of enemy engagement. He actually endangered the lives of his crew by making them sitting ducks to enemy fire….. ie they were stationary in a river surrounded by thick jungle. It’s alleged he actually demanded the medal and received it under sufferance.

    I thought Exxon has stopped political donations recently thereby allowing Uncle George to take up the slack.

    Let’s get back to Jimbo

    Oh the irony

    “Sometime after giving a potentially provocative interview to Sixty Minutes, but before it aired, I tried to get legal advice on my rights of free speech.”

    So let me get this straight. Jimbo thinks he’s getting muzzled but gives audience to 60 mins. He then gets a check for 10G, realizes that it may not look good if he heads off to JPMorgan Chase to deposit it but gets legal and PR advice instead. pro bone of course:-)

    Jimbo gave numerous interviews about his so called muzzling, which obviously infers that the administration kneecappers are really like the Marx brothers in drag.

    This is hilaroius.

    Isn’t Jim really just a political operative these days? Really!

  9. #9 ben
    September 28, 2007

    Look, the fundamental problem with Kerry/Vietnam was that he wanted it both ways. He wanted us on the right to look at his status as a decorated veteran, but then he also wanted us to ignore his anti-veteran behavior after the fact. Sorry buddy, but it doesn’t work that way.

  10. #10 dhogaza
    September 28, 2007

    Well, ben, I now know all I need to know about your sense of ethics, honor and fair play.

    You don’t like what Kerry did after he left the service, therefore it’s OK to tell people he obtained his silver star fraudulently?

    Wow.

  11. #11 Brian Schmidt
    September 28, 2007

    Ben, it was a paraphrase, and a reasonably accurate one. Did you read the link you provided?

    (Apologies for participating in the thread hijacking.)

  12. #12 Boris
    September 28, 2007

    Jimbo gave numerous interviews about his so called muzzling, which obviously infers that the administration kneecappers are really like the Marx brothers in drag.

    Yes, the administration attempted to silence Hansen, but ultimately failed. I’m sorry you think scientists should shut up and be silenced by political hacks just because your side has no science to speak of. (That is what this is all about, right? If you had scientific reasons to go against Hansen, you’d do that instead of making up stupid conspiracy theories.)

    And it’s “implies.”

  13. #13 Jc
    September 28, 2007

    He wasn’t silenced, Boris. It was a stunt. A nifty politcal stunt by a well armed operative.

    He can do what he likes But I’m also perfectly within my rights to judge the horse flesh and figure out the guy is trying to sell me a mule.

    And it’s not my side by the way. I voted for Clinton and Harry Bronwe as well as Bush in 2000 staying out in 04.

    Don’t automatically think people support the GOP if they’re agaisnt the Dems.

  14. #14 Boris
    September 28, 2007

    He wasn’t silenced, Boris. It was a stunt. A nifty politcal stunt by a well armed operative.

    Let me figure out this conspiracy theory. Hansen thinks “Man, I could sure use some of Soros’ $$$. I know, I’ll pretend that the Bushies are trying to silence me!” So he pretends, then, just as he planned, Soros comes to the rescue (through the GAP) and provides him with legal advice against Hansen’s pretend threat. So Hansen is richer by legal advice that he doesn’t need because he made up the threat in the first place.

    Got it.

  15. #15 cce
    September 28, 2007

    If you believe the right wing, the only war crimes that occurred in Vietnam were committed by Kerry.

    With regards to Hansen, the apparent outrage is over money Hansen didn’t have to spend to defend his true statements. The money he didn’t have to spend was somewhere between $0 and $720,000.

    I also have to wonder who “packaged” the 22 year old college dropout with a faulty resume and no understanding of science for his transition from political hucksterer to NASA media relations appointee and political hucksterer.

  16. #16 Jc
    September 28, 2007

    Na Boris:
    I think you ended up in the wrong Cul de sac despite using sat nav telling you directions where to go.

    Jimbo didn’t want to abide by the guidelines governing any large bureaucratic institution like NASA that has rules as to who can talk to the press and about what. Every large instituion has those rules and guidlines by the way.

    Jimbo has a big ego and wants to save the world before we go to hell in a basket by april 13 2067(as his model is predicting :-)).

    The press of course loves Jimbo and Jimbo loves the press loves the press back by the bucket load.

    So Jimbo figures a way of getting around this Guidelines nonsense by publicising how he lives in a “climate of fear” while he’s publicising “climate fear”.

    So he begins to give interviews etc. Uncle George’s crew are nothing if not opportunitist as they are taught by the master and offer jimbo all sorts of “assistance”.

    So no, Jimbo wasn’t in it for the 10g. He’s in it to move his politcal position.

  17. #17 JimO
    September 28, 2007

    How come nobody can answer that date problem with Kerry’s Honorable Discharge? It was dated 1978, years after he had actually been discharged, but shortly after Carter authorized NEW discharges for protestors who had left the military with less-than-honorable discharges. Kerry knows the truth about the type of discharge he originally received, but he’s not telling. It’s like he also knew the truth about his college grades, which were worse than W’s (so were Gore’s), but he kept those records secret in the campaign so his backers could lie about them. What a dork.

  18. #18 Mark P
    September 28, 2007

    If anyone still doesn’t know the meaning of “swiftboating”, this comment thread provides some excellent examples.

  19. #19 Boris
    September 28, 2007

    So no, Jimbo wasn’t in it for the 10g. He’s in it to move his politcal position.

    Then why are you making so much of pro bono legal advice in the other thread? It’s only of value if the threat s real.

  20. #20 jre
    September 28, 2007

    How come … [family-size bucket o' slime] … dork.

    If anyone still doesn’t know the meaning of “swiftboating”, this comment thread provides some excellent examples.

    Indeed.

  21. #21 Ian Gould
    September 28, 2007

    “It’s alleged he actually demanded the medal and received it under sufferance.”

    Funnily enough these allegations didn’t surface until a good twenty years later after Kerry had become an outspoken critic of the war and a Democratic politician.

    Equally funnily, the people now making those claims (who don’t the men who actually served on the same boat as Kerry and whose lives he supposedly endangered) uniformly praised him in formal written reprots at the time.

    But hey we can’t all heroicly defend the skies of Texas from the Mexican air force.

  22. #22 Lee
    September 28, 2007

    JC – bullpucky.

    Hansen did not say that approval per se was bad.

    He was saying that the approval process was being used to muzzle scientists and in its place push bad science claims from the administration, to a degree that he had never experienced before.

    He had a child – and I use that word carefully – making decisions about what he could say about science (not politics) and about what the public was going to learn about the science that government scientists were doing, and that child was muzzling science and altering findings, and Hansen stood up and said, ‘this is wrong.’ He refused to let the administration hide or misrepresent his and other scientists’ work – and that was the right thing for him to do. It was the right thing whether or not you or I agree with his position.

  23. #23 sod
    September 28, 2007

    So let me get this straight. Jimbo thinks he’s getting muzzled but gives audience to 60 mins. He then gets a check for 10G, realizes that it may not look good if he heads off to JPMorgan Chase to deposit it but gets legal and PR advice instead. pro bone of course:-) …. This is hilaroius.

    so you find it hilarious, that he got legal counsel?

    is this “hilarious” on the same scale, that the “Hansen got 700000 from Soros” claim?

    Jimbo didn’t want to abide by the guidelines governing any large bureaucratic institution like NASA that has rules as to who can talk to the press and about what. Every large instituion has those rules and guidlines by the way.

    are you talking about those typical limits, that people doing BASIC RESEARCH have while talking about their work?

    do you support the whistleblower organisation or the political appointee, trying to muzzle him?

  24. #24 ben
    September 28, 2007

    “Ben, it was a paraphrase, and a reasonably accurate one. Did you read the link you provided?”

    A pretty biased paraphrase. What Reagan said was so short it did not need paraphrasing, unless they were trying to make him look bad.

    Do you guys all believe that the documents Dan Rather presented to derail Bush were not obvious fakes?

  25. #25 Marion Delgado
    September 28, 2007

    Please think of trolls like ben as being ammo bait.

    If you stop and pick it up, the sniper trolls assassinate the comment thread.

    In the name of all that’s good and sane, there really are “people” who don’t merit a response.

  26. #26 Lance Pickens
    September 28, 2007

    I just wanted to point out that Jim Hansen’s name is not “Jimbo”, and that “Swiftboating” is the general term for highly organized character assassination. Also, there is nothing “Hilarious” about seeking legal advice, unless of course you find constitutional rights humorous.

    Even if Jim Hansen is a terrible person, he is still a great scientist. Since his detractors have a difficult time mounting serious critiques of his group’s work, they resort to petty personal insults. Post some serious critique, or go home.

  27. #27 Lee
    September 28, 2007

    So let me get this straight.

    Soros funds a foundation.

    That foundation gives $720,000 total to watchdog organizations, including $100,000 to GAP.

    GAP offers $10,000 to Hansen, which he declines.

    GAP also offer legal representation to Hansen, which he accepts to the tune of one letter.

    One frickin’ legal letter.

    And somehow, people are jumping in condemning Hansen, rather than the guys who claim this shows that Soros bought Hansen for $720,000.

    Don’t these guys care about their honor and intergrity?

  28. #28 Dano
    September 28, 2007

    Ben tactics compendium thus far:

    fling poo to stifle discussion on the SwiftBoating of the Hansen totem.

    IOW: can we stop the thread hijacking?

    Thank you everyone, in advance, for your help.

    Best,

    D

  29. #29 ben
    September 28, 2007

    Just trying to make the comments more interesting. Yeah, it’s a hijack, but the Hansen thing is pretty much dead, as proven by Tim. That’s why I come here. Is there really anything else that can be said about it? Not really.

    The Kerry thing is not a hijack thing, since the term “swift boating” was used. Then I said that I wasn’t that keen on Snopes anymore (Snopes used by Tim to defend Kerry) because of that lame bit on Reagan. Some of you folks thought that was OK, so now I’m trying to see if those same folks believe that the Dan Rather documents were not really fake. That will tell me something. Seems reasonable, no?

  30. #30 Marion Delgado
    September 28, 2007

    Just as an FYI, Gore graduated cum laude in government – the equivalent of an A- average. Mostly due to an exceptional senior year and lots of projects whereby he replaced his earlier bad grades.

    W, on the other hand, graduated with between a C and a C+

    Also, Gore’s SATs were substantially higher than W’s. Now that all the old lies are being resurrected.

    What Gore and W did post undergrad is not comparable. Gore worked, enlisted, did combat journalism, came back, took part time courses in law and theology, worked as a journalist, dropped out to run for congress, won a seat. His grades at Vanderbilt – essentially auditing – were all incompletes.

    W went to grad school and got an MA. but only their undergrad years are comparable. W’s first years were better – belying their reputations, Gore was more of a partier than W, some of his fellow students say he smoked pot almost every day his freshmen and sophomore years.

    Gore cleaned up his act at 20. W at 40. That’s the main difference between them.

  31. #31 Marion Delgado
    September 28, 2007

    Dano:

    I think the hard truth is, we can only set a good example, and post germane things, and basically pretend the trolls’ plus their repliers’ posts aren’t even there.

    Beyond that, if you check out Pharyngula, PZ Meyers has decent links to Firefox plug-ins that implement killfiles. He has one that kills people on his blog, but there are others that individual users use. I can’t imagine I’d miss anything if everything JC posted from now on was display:none.

    I believe the technological solution should involve Greasemonkey scripts. If done carefully, they would work on safari for os x too, via Creammonkey.

    Dunno how we script/implement things on IE7 though. Perhaps VB or for freeware, the old applescript-like “Frontier 5.0″ which was cross platform Classic Macintosh and Windows 98 and up.

  32. #32 Dano
    September 28, 2007

    FF killfile plug-ins?!? I need to visit PDQ.

    And thanks, Ben, for admitting you hijacked the thread.

    Best,

    D

  33. #33 Tim Lambert
    September 28, 2007

    ben, you are really making yourself look bad here. Do you think that because you don’t like what Kerry did after his service in Vietnam, it is OK to lie about Kerry’s service record? Please answer, because it looks to me like your moral compass is broken.

  34. #34 mndean
    September 28, 2007

    Tim,
    IIRC, Ben is a libertarian leaning towards Randroid, i.e. no moral compass was installed on delivery.

  35. #35 ben
    September 28, 2007

    “ben, you are really making yourself look bad here. Do you think that because you don’t like what Kerry did after his service in Vietnam, it is OK to lie about Kerry’s service record?”

    No, I do not think that it is OK to lie about anyone. Not ever.

  36. #36 ben
    September 28, 2007

    Actually, the “not ever” thing is too rigid, as there are obvious exceptions to the “never lie” thing, in extreme situations that rarely occur. In American/Western political/scientific discourse this essentially never happens. E.g. someone is going to shoot me in the face if I don’t lie about another person, etc.

  37. #37 lapa
    September 28, 2007

    SAUDAÇÕES LITERÀRIAS DE PORTUGAL.
    HAVE A NICE WEEK-END

  38. #38 dhogaza
    September 28, 2007

    Ben sez …

    No, I do not think that it is OK to lie about anyone. Not ever.

    But earlier, he said …

    In my opinion, what happened to Kerry was legitimate, and tough bananas for his jerky past.

    Why did you say that the swiftboating of Kerry was legitimate, then? Don’t tell me you bought into that boatload of lies, please. You can’t be that gullible, can you?

    And, yes, it appears that the Rather documents are not genuine. What does one have to do with the other?

  39. #39 elspi
    September 28, 2007

    A simple question ben:
    Haven’t your lies hurt the country enough?

  40. #40 ben
    September 28, 2007

    As for looking bad, the only thing that is known with certainty is that someone is lying about Kerry.

    Something that also looks certain, is that Kerry is one of them.

    “I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me.”

    He’s talking about Nixon, but Nixon wasn’t president yet. Some memory. That, and it certainly wasn’t the Khmer Rouge acting with the Vietnamese, they hated each other.

  41. #41 dhogaza
    September 28, 2007

    That, and it certainly wasn’t the Khmer Rouge acting with the Vietnamese, they hated each other.

    Read closely. He didn’t say they were working together.

    As far as which President he’s talking about, your quote snippet (I’m tempted to say “quote mine”) doesn’t say. Nixon had been elected by Christmas, 1968 and was in office four weeks later, so as far as memory lapses go, it ain’t a big one even if you’re right.

    But what’s your point? What if Kerry misspoke, or even lied outright?

    Why the deflection from the Swiftboat lies?

    For someone who declares “it is never right to lie about someone”, you seem awfully interested in deflecting criticism of the swiftboat lies to criticism of unrelated behavior by Kerry instead.

    Despite your previous comment about lying, your post is much more in the spirit of this:

    In my opinion, what happened to Kerry was legitimate, and tough bananas for his jerky past.

  42. #42 mndean
    September 28, 2007

    Ben,
    The issue is you and your ever-shifting rationalizations, not anyone else. Why posters here continues to engage you is beyond me – there is certainly no substance to your second-hand slime, just the typical vileness and hatred of your stripe. Into the grease(monkey) pit you go, and no more amnesties.

  43. #43 ben
    September 28, 2007

    Oh Mndean, there’s plenty of vileness and hatred going around, even on this board, in all directions. I see no objections here when it’s directed at GWB. That’s the nature of politics and political discussion, like it or not.

    And nobody has convinced me yet that the swift boat veterens were lying about Kerry. The only thing that is conclusive is that there is disagreement about what happened. Short of Kerry releasing his records, we’ll never really know. I’m sure you all would defend Bush if this sort of thing happened to him. Oh wait, none of you did.

  44. #44 dhogaza
    September 28, 2007

    I’m sure you all would defend Bush if this sort of thing happened to him. Oh wait, none of you did.

    I would, but it didn’t. Rather, after all, got his ass kicked out of CBS (and is now suing for a large sum).

    He was denounced, not defended, by his employer.

    The fact that the swiftboaters are lying is quite easy to verify. You’re saying, in essence, that you don’t care, because …

    In my opinion, what happened to Kerry was legitimate, and tough bananas for his jerky past.

  45. #45 Lance
    September 28, 2007

    IBD may have wildly exagerated the Soros-Hansen link.

    No such questions exist about the Heinz-Kerry-Hansen pay out of $250,000.

    Here’s a snip from the publicity page of the Heinz Foundation website

    “James Hansen
    7th Annual Heinz Award Recipient Read/View Acceptance

    Dr. James Hansen receives the Heinz Award in the Environment for his exemplary leadership in the critical and often-contentious debate over the threat of global climate change.”

    Lindzen accepts 10 g’s from Exxon and he’s an “oil industry stooge” but Hansen pockets a cool 250 large for an “environmental award” from Heinz-Kerry and he’s your hero.

    The word hypocrisy doesn’t really do this kind of duplicitous thinking justice.

  46. #46 bigcitylib
    September 28, 2007

    Lance, bet it was a whole lot easier to find out about Hansen’s Heinz award that it was to find out about Lindzen’s Exxon money. Thats the difference. Lindzen is ashamed to say where he got his funding. So are people like Tim Ball, Tom Harris and Pat Michaels. Why do you think that is?

    PS. Has anyone noticed how Newsbusters Noel Sheppard overuses the term “disgraceful”? It occurs in at least 50% of his posts.

  47. #47 Tim Lambert
    September 28, 2007

    Err Lance, Senator John Heinz was a Republican. Are you trying to tell us that Hansen is working for the Republicans because he got a Heinz award?

  48. #48 Dano
    September 28, 2007

    Plus, Hansen was working, then he got an award. He wasn’t working to get the Heinz award.

    Really, CNS/NewsMax believers are so lame.

    Best,

    D

  49. #49 Tim Lambert
    September 28, 2007

    ben, it sure is telling the way you keep trying to change the subject to Bush, or Reagan, or things that Kerry did after his service ended. I quoted a good summary of what happened with the Silver Star. What, precisely, is wrong with it? You are acting just like the people who insist that the Rather forgeries are genuine.

  50. #50 ddtruy33
    September 28, 2007

    I work at NASA and have been involved with press releases … what occurred with Hansen is normal and has been for years — and is NOT the “censorship” it is portrayed to be.

    You are always supposed to inform the news office prior to interviews, then inform them when it has been completed. That’s their JOB. They are responsible for dealing with the press.

    Having a staffer present for onsite interviews is utterly normal for everyone. Doesn’t happen all the time, usually according to the press office work-load more than anything else.

    Hansen had given over 1400 interviews, including 15 the month he claimed he was being “censored”, but was ignoring his employers policy and got called on it.

    If it had been me, I would have been expected to get fired or at least called to the woodshed. But it would never be me, since I recognize rules apply to me. They are not burdensome.

    But Hansen seems to think rules don’t apply to him.

    Then to take legal and media advice from a political group is astounding. This is so outside the pale of normalcy at NASA and science in general, it cannot be minimized.

    I’ve had arguments with press people over the phrasing of press releases. It usually revolves around them not understanding the science, or trying to fulfill their mission to write them at the 6th grade level, etc.

    But Hansen seems to want people to think he’s being censored.

    And, by the way, his science is NOT good. The code he uses to process temperature data is now being audited after being found by amateurs to contain substantial errors. So far, it has been reported to contain hundreds of arbitrary “adjustments” which tend to reinforce warming trends.

    And look at the sites reporting the raw data to begin with (what a joke — major fraud):

    http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

    Study the photos of the weather sites reporting those temperatures going into Hansen’s dubious sw …

  51. #51 Marion Delgado
    September 28, 2007

    Dano:

    The other thing is, if we “collect” these points and periodically (preferably link to a refutation of or) refute them, that’s not the same as engaging the trolls. Or so I tell my conscience.

  52. #52 Dano
    September 28, 2007

    Study the photos of the weather sites reporting those temperatures going into Hansen’s dubious sw

    Ooooh! Ooooh! Two new indicators serendipitously discovered in one comment!

    Eureeeeeka!!

    1. Instant credibility buster: trotting out excuses for SwiftBoating Hansen.

    2. Instant credibility buster: referring to amateur photographers debunking the surface temp record.
    2a. Instant ridicule: referring to amateur photographers debunking the surface temp record.

    Twofer.

    Best,

    D

  53. #53 Marion Delgado
    September 28, 2007

    Tim, Dano, et al.:

    http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/4107http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/4107

    That’s the killfile script, and it is greasemonkey, so perhaps it can be adapted to safari creammonkey some day.

    Pay attention to the warning about someone hacking the script site. Basically, you need to go over the scripts before installing. It’s believed all the bad scripts are gone and no more hacking has occurred, but better safe than sorry.

  54. #54 Dano
    September 28, 2007

    Marion:

    Got it. I understand. I’m currently experiencing impatience with the tiresome whack-a-mole.

    Society has moved away from the 2% of fraidy-cat white males who have chosen their identity as enviro-haters. We can either stroke their no-further-developed-than-adolescent-boy egos or practice ignorage.

    Surely on occasion we can amuse ourselves at their expense, but our energy can be directed toward whack-a-moling the losers who wish to drag society down. Best to discuss solutions and whack-a-mole the fraidy cats on that ground than whack-a-mole the fraidy cats on old, tired ground.

    Best,

    D

  55. #55 Marion Delgado
    September 28, 2007

    ddtruy33:

    A. We have only your word you work at NASA. And no idea in what capacity – janitor would be my placement for you.

    B. George Deutsch not only worked at NASA, but got to order others around – people like James Hansen. So a good question here is, are you another lying, phony hack, feloniously stealing the taxpayers money under false pretenses, as he did?

    C. The GAP is not a political group. It’s in no way partisan. No whistleblower would be excluded for being a Republican, a conservative, anything you wish to name. Indeed, by saying what you are, you are implying that to be a Republican is to be a Nazi, and to be in any other party is to take initiative and have your own moral compass. Is that the goal?

    D. The Ridenhour Award is hardly partisan, either. Ridenhour, an infantryman. helicopter gunner, and later journalist (and the only person at the Princeton version of the Milgram experiment who refused to administer “learning” shocks) was not a partisan hack. We don’t even have a record of his voting patterns then. The president at the time he exposed the Song My (My Lai 4) massacre was Democrat Lyndon Johnson.

    E. Therefore, I hereby raise you to useless lying troll status.

  56. #56 mndean
    September 28, 2007

    I tell you, it’s like spraying for roaches in a restaurant – a never-ending and distasteful battle. And once you fall behind, you’re overrun with vermin.

  57. #57 ddtruy33
    September 28, 2007

    >I tell you, it’s like spraying for roaches in a >restaurant – a never-ending and distasteful battle. >And once you fall behind, you’re overrun with vermin.

    In the end, they don’t matter. Reality ultimately wins.
    It’s sufficient to state it; let them scurry.

  58. #58 cce
    September 28, 2007

    If you want to win a $250,000 award, you must first:

    1) Rise to the top of your field
    2) Make forceful statements asserting your position when it isn’t popular to do so.
    3) Draw the attention and support of a US Senator.
    4) Have history prove your projections to be astonishingly correct, while that of your detractors crash and burn.
    5) 13 short years after you first impressed the late US senator, you are presented with an award in his Honor.

    Eplogue:
    3 years later reluctantly endorse John Kerry. Who else was he going to endorse? Bush?

  59. #59 dhogaza
    September 28, 2007

    Study the photos of the weather sites reporting those temperatures going into Hansen’s dubious sw …

    Since you work for NASA, it’s safe to presume you’ll be going up in orbit soon to photograph those pesky satellites whose temp data correlates so nicely with that awful ground station data, right?

    Have a nice journey – and, hey, forget your spacesuit!

  60. #60 Tom
    September 28, 2007

    This is all you need to know about Hansen. He long ago crossed over from scientist to politician. The problem is he is still masquerading as a scientist.

    In March of 2004, James Hanses wrote in Scientific American,
    …Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue and energy sources such as synfuels, shale oil and and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrating objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions.

    Note that he says that only now he is trying to be objective. That means he was not being objective until now. He was intentionally trying to manipulate the public. That should have been the end of him right there and then. A scientist should NEVER MANIPULATE ANYTHING. HE MUST ALWAYS BE OBJECTIVE.

    When can you believe someone who admits he was lying to you in the past when he only admits it after the fact?

  61. #62 Hank Roberts
    September 28, 2007

    > audited … substantial errors

    Ah, yes, the CA line. And you claim to work at NASA, eh?

    The self-appointed auditors have a definition for “substantial” — it means “not significant but we want you to think it’s really big.” Like teenage boys, really.

  62. #63 ddtruy33
    September 28, 2007

    Prediction? Hansen hasn’t even described past measurements correctly.

    A few weeks ago, he had to revise the claim that 9 of the top 10 warmest years occurred in the last 12 years. This had been a key plank used to promote policy change.

    Turns out the data had been mishandled. Once an amateur pointed it out (after 100s of hours of legwork, paper-reading, and number-crunching), the results had to be revised now showing 4 of the 10 hottest years were back in the 1930s, 5 of them before World War II.

    Why endorse Kerry? That is very odd for a scientist to do. The more public he is, the more compelling the reason not too be compromised. $250,000 appears to be the trade-in value for a Ph.D. ’cause he sure isn’t working in that realm anymore.

  63. #64 Ian Gould
    September 28, 2007

    “The only thing that is conclusive is that there is disagreement about what happened.”

    So why do you choose to believe the version that ties in to your political prejudices.

    Tell me in what other context would you accept informal statements made decades after an event as more reliable than the formal written accounts made at the time?

  64. #65 Boris
    September 28, 2007

    A few weeks ago, he had to revise the claim that 9 of the top 10 warmest years occurred in the last 12 years. This had been a key plank used to promote policy change.

    You work at NASA and you confuse global temps with US temps? It seems you are more qualified to be a right wing blogger.

  65. #66 luminous beauty
    September 28, 2007

    ddtruy33 writes,

    A few weeks ago, he had to revise the claim that 9 of the top 10 warmest years occurred in the last 12 years. This had been a key plank used to promote policy change.

    Turns out the data had been mishandled. Once an amateur pointed it out (after 100s of hours of legwork, paper-reading, and number-crunching), the results had to be revised now showing 4 of the 10 hottest years were back in the 1930s, 5 of them before World War II.

    Except that the 9 of 10 refers to global temps and 4 of ten refers to temps in the lower 48 states of the US.

    This is proof that ddtruy33 is an idiot. If he truly works for NASA, it is probably as a lab rat.

  66. #67 JB
    September 28, 2007

    There are 3 things certain in life: taxes, death and that when you mention James Hansen anywhere on the web, all the nut cases in the world will suddenly appear on the scene.

  67. #68 Eli Rabett
    September 28, 2007

    deedee we know that between showing you got the biggest whatevers juttin out there, it is hard to remember that the US is not the world. 9 out of the 12 warmest years where. Globally or just the US. Wanna guess, you got a 50% chance of being right

    Having played a key role in finding the error in the GISS procedure, I think I know a lot more about it that you do, and the truth is, that ain’t the way it happened. You can read CA for the rest, but then again you have.

    And deedee you really should stick to ballet and leave the science to Dexter.

  68. #69 luminous beauty
    September 28, 2007

    Accusing others of playing politics has got to be the ultimate pot/kettle conundrum. However, it does imply that the person making the accusation has political beliefs founded on deception.

  69. #70 ben
    September 28, 2007

    OK, going back to my earlier statements. I don’t think that John Kerry deserved to have lies spread about himself, that’s not what I meant, ever. All I meant was that I thought the allegations were true, and so he deserved to have them exposed.

    Now, they may not be true, but nobody has proven anything about them one way or another. Either way, they should have been scrutinized because Kerry touted his service record as qualifications for his presidency during time of war.

    I think Bush and Kerry are both a couple of nits who should release their service records.

  70. #71 luminous beauty
    September 28, 2007

    Ben,

    Kerry has released his service records, extensively. What may or may not have been redacted, was redacted by the U.S. Navy, not by Kerry.

    For Bush, there are gaps you could fly an F104 through. We have these reconstructions of destroyed memos that do, nonetheless, agree with the testimony of the parties involved.

  71. #72 ddtruy33
    September 28, 2007

    The global data has not yet been adjusted to reflect the latest correction to US dataset contribution.

    —————-

    Historical studies find a 40 year cycle to climate scares.

    “MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age”
    – New York Times, Sep 18, 1924

    “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise”
    – New York Times, March 27, 1933

    “Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing: A Major Cooling is Widely Considered to be Inevitable”
    – New York Times, May 21, 1975

    “Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming”
    – New York Times, Dec 27, 2005

    And then there is Time Magazine’s June 24, 1974 article showing the alarming growth in Arctic snow and ice coverage…

    There have been 4 climate scare cycles in the last 110 years, swinging back and forth between global warming and cooling with a ~40 year cycle. That’s just the claim — what the climate has been doing is much less clear.

    When evaluating the claims, the public has to consider facts, the behavior and demeanor of the people advocating the current scare, and the fact the press has misrepresented it at least 3 times previously.

    Keep in mind, the climate is always changing. Making it government policy to halt change is a mighty obligation indeed.

    Note the banning of CFC’s in the 1980’s to protect the “ozone hole”. Now, today, Nature publishes a report that ozone chemistry is not at all what it was thought, they have no idea what is going on, if anything. How many billions wasted over flawed science?

    http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html

    “As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.”

  72. #73 ben
    September 29, 2007

    “Reconstructions of destroyed memos,” eh?

  73. #74 luminous beauty
    September 29, 2007

    “Reconstructions of destroyed memos,” eh?

    Posted by: ben

    “…that do, nonetheless, agree with the testimony of the parties involved.”

  74. #75 cce
    September 29, 2007

    The global data was immediately updated to reflect the change. When plotted on a graph, the change is imperceptible and doesn’t affect any of the global “hottest years” rankings. You can go to the gistemp website and look for yourself.

    And regarding the Ozone work, they’re rethinking the chemistry of ozone destruction, not the involvement of CFCs:
    “Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.”

  75. #76 dhogaza
    September 29, 2007

    And then there is Time Magazine’s June 24, 1974 article showing the alarming growth in Arctic snow and ice coverage…

    Wow! A popular magazine’s article is proof that science is all hooey!

    Too bad for you that World Wide Weekly is no longer sold in supermarkets. You major source of scientific knowledge is harder to find now. Take comfort, though, they’re still publishing online.

  76. #77 cce
    September 29, 2007

    This article by Hansen is worth reading, appropriately titled:
    “Swift Boating, Stealth Budgeting, & Unitary Executives.”
    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/worldwatch_nov2006.pdf

    Even talks about the “emphasis on extreme scenarios” quote. And yet that little chestnut is still making the rounds. Why is that?

  77. #78 GS
    September 29, 2007

    Hansen got busted, now he is throwing a hissy fit.

    Famous anti-Bush and extreme liberal Soros clearly enabled Hansen for POLITICAL REASONS based on a radical leftists agenda.

    Science was the last thing on any of these peoples minds.

    Hansen is an ACTIVIST first, scientist second.

    He never came forward that he was accepting any help from Soros money.

    He witheld that until he was busted. He would never have volunteered that freely.

  78. #79 Sortition
    September 29, 2007

    I would like to remind the discussants that Kerry’s presence in Vietnam and the acts of heroism he carried out there (if any), were part of a criminal aggressive war.

  79. #80 Tim Lambert
    September 29, 2007

    Heads up guys, [incoming freepers](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1903958/posts).

    Did you know that Mary Rosh [was a freeper](http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39a2c3e40462.htm)?

  80. #81 Patrick
    September 29, 2007

    The Swift Boat vets brought facts into the 2004 election to dispute Kerry’s accounts of his actions in vietnam, since Kerry was using his Vietnam war experience in his bid for office. Some facts are disputed, but most of the Swift Boat vets’ claims about how Kerry got his medals turned out to be true.

    OTOH an attempt to tarnish Bush’s military record was presented by CBS’ Dan Rather in Sept 2004, and was quickly exposed as a fraud based on a transparent forgery of a memo. So if you want to claim someone is making an accurate but hurtful allegation, call it “SwiftBoating”.
    If you want to claim that someone is making up a lie about you based on phony evidence, call it “MaryMapes-ing”.

  81. #82 foucaultfan
    September 29, 2007

    Yes, Patrick, “MaryMapes-ing”. I love it. You know, I’m not a religious person, but it is so easy for me to tell the difference between the Pharisees and the decent few. For one thing, the decent few usually have about 30 IQ points on the typical Pharisee. But the real difference is that they just behave decently. That doesn’t mean that they are always right. However, they are trying to be right and that gives them a huge advantage over Pharisees who are just trying to extend one form of dominance or another.

    The excitable little weasels who feel the need to defend the Pharisees at all costs, what’s the matter with them? I’m not entirely sure but part of it in many cases must be a lack of intelligence. This naturally leads to timidity and fear. The feeling of being one of the sheeple following a major Pharisee must be comforting.

    A perfect example of the difference can be seen by comparing:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz8KiA-YMt8

    and

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UERzOB2CWQg&mode=related&search=

    Richard Lindzen vs. Brenda Ekwurzel. [Sorry, not a fair fight.]

    At any rate, here’s a little scorecard for you:

    Pharisees: George Soros, Jimbo Hansen, Al Gore, Sid Blumenthal, Dan Rather.

    Decent folks: Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen, David Gelernter, K. C. Johnson.

  82. #83 Jc
    September 29, 2007

    Here’s my take on Jim Hansen.

    I think Hansen has been a decent scientist overall. He has worked intelligently on improving the IPCC models, which subsequently lowered the estimates on the present centuries warming. He also figured out that soot in the atmosphere is acting, as a substantial warming agent and it is not just CO2 causing the problem. So Hansen has done some mighty good work in his field and is at the top of the heap in his area of expertise. Only a dumbo wouldn’t recognize Hansen’s contribution

    However his frequent attempt at influencing the political process makes him a political operative as well. The problem he has is that his role as a government worker and political operative doesn’t work, nor does policy wonk and senior scientist.

    If any of you people think this guy has ever been muzzled in some way please show evidence that anyone has ever, ever attempted to prevent his scientific papers from being published. Even one will do.

    Getting on 60 minutes and talking about the latest weather forecast is not friggen science. I only wish Hansen knew the difference. He gets paid to do science and offer up his research. The government, any government has a right to tell loose cannons to keep their mouth shut and work through the correct channels and be out there in the public forum offering up opinions they may actually know nothing about when it come to policy

    It is not Hansen’s job in his current position to offer policy suggestions. His job is to offer the science to help formulate policy. Policy is an entirely different issue, which Hansen can’t distinguish.

    Policy experts such as economists are the people who have the expertise to figure policy response.

    The criticism that Hansen doesn’t respect the person he reports to is irrelevant, especially when Hansen’s research is not being affected in terms of getting published.

    Hansen appears to be several things. He’s a great scientist, a hot head and politically active. All these things came together and allowed Uncles George’s “Opportunist Institute” to try an assist Hansen so as to score politically and embarrass administration. It appears that Jim was wise to this by no t accepting the 10G, but he did put himself in a position of taking political sides while he’s a civil servant which is the wrong thing to do.

  83. #84 Jc
    September 29, 2007

    work through the correct channels and NOT be out there in the public forum offering up

  84. #85 Marion Delgado
    September 29, 2007

    I blame Tim, not Jim. Tim, you wicked troll murderer! Now we all must suffer.

    And don’t question me. I have a Nobel Peace Prize in Medicine for my work doing string theory on the Akashik plane.

  85. #86 Ian Gould
    September 29, 2007

    “The Swift Boat vets brought facts into the 2004 election…”

    Right, who could doubt the veracity of people who now claim they falsified performance reports and commendations for bravery back in the 1960’s.

  86. #87 sod
    September 29, 2007

    Policy experts such as economists are the people who have the expertise to figure policy response.

    Jc, your post started somewhat alright, but you lost it (at least) with that sentence.

    why on earth should an economist be better in advicing climate policy, than a climate scientist???

    foreign policy? ask economic experts! (looks like that is what we re seeing in Iraq today..)

    If any of you people think this guy has ever been muzzled in some way please show evidence that anyone has ever, ever attempted to prevent his scientific papers from being published. Even one will do.

    massive move of goal post.

    being muzzled vs. stopping him from publishing scientific papers.

    the science has been out for quite some time. the problem is, that we have NOT acted on it. same with low consumption cars, solar energy …

  87. #88 sod
    September 29, 2007

    It is not Hansen’s job in his current position to offer policy suggestions. His job is to offer the science to help formulate policy. Policy is an entirely different issue, which Hansen can’t distinguish.

    you might want to take a look at the current MASSIVE movement of bringing ETHICS to every scientists training. getting your results APPLIED and spreading the word about it OUTSIDE scientific papers is another important point of science training these days.

    check some random university curricula and you will see that Hansen is giving a rather perfect example of what a scientist is supposed to do today.

  88. #89 mndean
    September 29, 2007

    Yup. Vermin overrunning the place. Greasemonkey getting a lot of exercise today.

  89. #90 Jc
    September 29, 2007

    Sod

    You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

    “why on earth should an economist be better in advicing climate policy, than a climate scientist???”

    It’s not the job of a Climate physicist to tell policy makers how to figure out the response. The scientists are there to explain the science and the parmeters.

    They know shit F all about the tax policy, the incentives and the whole kit and caboodle that goes with figuring out the response required. Hansen thinks he ought to insinuate himself into this mix when its really not his field of competency.

    “massive move of goal post.”

    No , it’s not. That just you being disingenuous. It has all to do with it.

    The guy has given more than 1400 interviews and discussions with the media. If he feels muzzled the reason may be because he is possibly being asked to do his regular job rather than moonlight.

    “the science has been out for quite some time. the problem is, that we have NOT acted on it. same with low consumption cars, solar energy …”

    Bullshit. We haven’t. That’s just your personal preferences showing up in that you think we ought to be doing more at this point in time than what we have. I’m not going into that.

    Hansen’s endorsemsnt of Kerry in 04 was a disgrace for a public funded scientist. He’s on the government pay roll. If he wanted to do that he should have resigned his position.

    Yea, right some muzzzling. The guy endorses Kerry and cries he’s been muzzled. Who the hell is he kidding?

  90. #91 Tim Lambert
    September 29, 2007

    Here you go JC, from the [GAP report](http://ent.groundspring.org/EmailNow/pub.php?module=URLTracker&cmd=track&j=161281030&u=1587131)

    >In December 2005, Hansen presented a lecture on the importance of reducing emissions at the American Geophysical Union and also announced on ABC News that data showed 2005 to be the “warmest year on record.” Subsequently, the NASA PAO told Hansen that there had been a “storm of anger at headquarters” and threatened him with “dire consequences” if he kept making similar remarks.140 According to GISS press officer Leslie McCarthy, George Deutsch rejected an interview request for Hansen from NPR, “the most liberal” media outlet, because it would undermine his job of “mak[ing] the President look good.”

  91. #92 sod
    September 29, 2007

    Here you go JC, from the GAP report

    but Tim, the only people allowed to talk to the mass media about the climate are politically appointed press staff and economists. only they know about taxes and stuff!

  92. #93 bigcitylib
    September 29, 2007

    The fun and games at CA continue. In their latest escapade Steve concludes that Hansen’s adjustment for Russian statements understates the amount of warming (introduces a cooling bias)

    http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/09/mcintyre-discovers-global-warming-worse.html#links

  93. #94 sod
    September 29, 2007

    Sod, You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

    nice claim. now all you have to do is to show that it is true!

    It’s not the job of a Climate physicist to tell policy makers how to figure out the response. The scientists are there to explain the science and the parmeters.

    yes. and as politicians spend the majority of their time, reading articles in scientific papers. so they will jump to immediate action!

    or are there some economists involved? translating scientific articles into tax policy?

    They know shit F all about the tax policy, the incentives and the whole kit and caboodle that goes with figuring out the response required. Hansen thinks he ought to insinuate himself into this mix when its really not his field of competency.

    i am rather unaware of any attempts by Hansen to write detailed tax laws. could some economist with more understanding on the subject post some links please?

    No , it’s not. That just you being disingenuous. It has all to do with it.

    again: being muzzled is NOT the same, as being kept from publishing scientific articles.

    Bullshit. We haven’t. That’s just your personal preferences showing up in that you think we ought to be doing more at this point in time than what we have. I’m not going into that.

    okay. so you think i am wrong, by claiming that not enough action was taken in the past.

    so you imply, that TOO MUCH has been done?

    we have done TOO MUCH to preserve climate in the past?!?

    as we have done basically nothing, you would have preferred some support for an INCREASE in CO2 output?

    we have done TOO MUCH to reduce consumption of cars?!?

    TOO MUCH has been done to support solar energy?!?

    are you insane?

  94. #95 G
    September 29, 2007

    Sorry Dr. Hansen, but your ‘fudged’ data points and completely bogus claim that 1998 was the warmest year on record are only further proof of your agenda. Your data points are flawed, so your study and your conclusions are flawed. You are a biased hack supported by Soros – I could care less how you try to ‘spin’ your results or your funding.

    Your refusal to provide your methods for others to reproduce is another scientific no-no – or are you going to claim that scientific findings should not be presented in a manner that would allow others to verify or debunk your work?

    I spent 10 years generating and objectively analyzing scientific data, and I find your methods and reporting seriously flawed.

    http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm

    As for the the ‘swift-boating’ allegation and John Kerry, I defy ANYONE to explain how a 3 month tour in Vietnam that earns someone 3 purple hearts without a day in the infirmary can be called anything other than a medal seeking self promoter who joined the military solely to advance his own delusion to be the next JFK.
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200408/ai_n9456810

    Kerry is a piece of garbage who fled when his fellow swift boaters came under attack during the Bay Hap incident. Then he got his 3rd purple heart for a self infilcted wound and returned home to call his fellow service Vietnam vets war criminals and baby killers.

    Oh, and 35 years leader he calls our soldiers too stupid and lazy to succeed in school so they ‘got stuck’ in Iraq.

  95. #96 David Marjanović
    September 29, 2007

    Soros, giving money (and much less money than claimed) to a whistleblower organisation, who write a single letter for Hansen (to defend him from a political appointee, who faked his resumee..), while Hansen declines to take money directly from them: BAD.

    Soros, financing the Ukrainian Revolution: GOOD.

    ( Ok I’m jealous he marries rich gals)

    Something Captain Unelected would never do. He doesn’t need to, after all. Erm… he did it anyway.

    Look, the fundamental problem with Kerry/Vietnam was that he wanted it both ways. He wanted us on the right to look at his status as a decorated veteran, but then he also wanted us to ignore his anti-veteran behavior after the fact. Sorry buddy, but it doesn’t work that way.

    Anti-veteran?

    Do you confuse anti-war with anti-veteran? Is telling his fellow veterans “we’ve been sent to kill & die for no good reason” anti-veteran?

    Rather, after all, got his ass kicked out of CBS (and is now suing for a large sum).

    He was scheduled for retreat anyway. He didn’t need to be specifically fired.

    Why endorse Kerry? That is very odd for a scientist to do.

    Wrong question. Right question: Why endorse Anyone But Bush? Obvious answer: Because the Republican War on Science had gone on long enough. Do you really expect a scientist to stay silent about this???

    George Deutsch has said that the job of NASA or anyone at NASA is to “make the President look good”. For this alone he must be fired and should have been fired long ago.

    Just to state the obvious: I don’t need to know anything about Hansen to come to this conclusion; Hansen is irrelevant for it. It is also irrelevant who happens to be President.

  96. #97 David Marjanović
    September 29, 2007

    Oh, and 35 years leader he calls our soldiers too stupid and lazy to succeed in school so they ‘got stuck’ in Iraq.

    No. He calls Fearless Flightsuit stupid and lazy because he went to war with the army Sgt. Rummy wanted, rather than with the army Gen. Shinseki wanted. He deplores the situation that those who can’t afford an education elsewhere* have no alternative but to join the army, which defeats the whole purpose of a volunteer army. He deplores the fact that there are working poor in the USA, even working poor with three jobs — you don’t get that elsewhere in the First World.

    Isn’t that obvious?

    * “Afford an education”. Tsss. Yet another bizarre characteristic of the USA.

    But I digress. You have changed the topic. In fact, you changed it several times within your comment. You started with once again confusing the contiguous 48 states of the USA, some of which were the Dust Bowl in the 1930s, with the whole world. Scroll up a few comments in the improbable event that you want to learn.

  97. #98 Tim Lambert
    September 29, 2007

    G, you seem to be extraordinarily gullible. Do you believe everything you see on some non-scientist’s blog? Hansen has published his data, his algorithms and released the source code. There was a mistake in the data, but it made no noticeable difference to the global temperature record and 1998 is still much warmer than 1934. You haven’t ever looked at the GISS temperature site, have you?

  98. #99 David Marjanović
    September 29, 2007

    Oops, the arrow was supposed to be an asterisk.

  99. #100 Boris
    September 29, 2007

    Jc,

    Yea, right some muzzzling.

    Can we get this clear once and for all? NASA attempted to muzzle Hansen and failed, so evidence that he gave 1400 interviews or was on 60 minutes is not evidence that they did not attempt to muzzle him. Verstehen Sie?

    Getting on 60 minutes and talking about the latest weather forecast is not friggen science.

    It’s called being a private citizen and exercising your first amendment freedoms. What, you think that because Hansen is a government scientist he can’t give interviews on a topic on which he is a leading expert? So the only climate scientists who can speak out are the “skeptics” like Patrick Michaels–the guy who erases lines on graphs and actually hides his funding?

    For someone who doesn’t believe that the administration attempted to muzzle Hansen, you sure seem like you agree with such an action.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.