Why hasn't NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen Been Fired or Arrested?

Question

If anthropogenic Global Warming is false, and there is a conspiracy by scientists to falsify data, with intent to defraud and enslave the population, why haven't the scientists who have comitted these crimes been brought to trial? Dr. James Hansen must be one of the leaders of the conspiracy. He works for NASA, which is under the control of the Executive Branch of the United States Government, and is subject to management by executive order of the President of the United States. The President of the United States has certainly not been an enthusiastic supporter of the idea of AGW. Why hasn't he taken effective action to deal with the conspiracy? Why hasn't the FBI been called in to investigate, as in past cases of fraudulent use of government research funds?

It seems to me that there are two possibities. Either: (1) G. W. Bush and other top-level members of the Executive Branch are part of the conspiracy or (2) the data on AGW are not falsified, and would prove to be substantially true if held up to investigative scrutiny.

And if G. W. Bush is part of the conspiracy, isn't he EVEN WORSE than his opponent in the 2000 election?

Andy --- employees of NASA centers are of two types, direct Federal employees, (i.e. civil servants), or employees of the organization operating the center under contract from NASA (e.g. some JPL workers are employees of Caltech). In either case, they derive their salary directly or indirectly from federal funds. Fraudulent use of those funds is under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department and its investigative arm, the FBI.

mikeczim - Tomorrow is Mr. Jello day!

amancalledchuda --- Actual scientific controversy is all very well. The effect of GW on sea level rise is difficult to predict, since the greatest driver is precipitation in Antarctica, which could go either way in the early phases of GW. But if AGW is false, surely Hansen and the other conspirators must be falsifying the effects of CO2 and its effects on climate---these are the central issues relating to the carbon tax that they plan to use in order to enslave the public. How could they be honestly mistaken about the anthropogenic causes of GW?

Mr Jello --- The Executive branch is under Republican control. (BTW, I'm a registered Republican.) If AGW is incorrect, the clear malfeasance and misuse of government funds by the scientific conspirators should be brought to light by an investigation by the Justice Department, which is under the executive management of the Office of the President of the United States. There is no way that Congress could prevent such an investigation. Congress could hold its own investigation; Congress could investigate the Justice Department, but Congress could not prevent a Justice Department investigation.

Answer 1

It's possibility (2).

Answer 2

Your ideas seems to be that if you "shoot the messenger" the problem will go away. I could write a few hundred facts that clearly point to Global Warming and you probably will neither read or understand them.
It is not because I think you are too dumb to understand. Your sentences are well constructed and there is good logic at places.
You simply are too scared or do not want to believe our children and, for sure, our grand children are all going to bake because there are too many people like you that will not take the steps needed nor demand our government to take the steps urgently needed, and ESSENTIAL to the survival of life in the planet.
The thought of Venus, next door, with a Carbon Dioxide atmosphere being at an stable temperature in balance with the sun radiation, i.e., it emits as much heat as it gets from the sun, must be, understandably, frightening if you were to believe that its temperature is 846 Deg. Fahrenheit. Hotter than the ovens at Auschwitz (somehow the word "warmer" seems inadequate and pizza oven disrespectful).
Have a nice day with a cool beer and a hot pizza!

Dr. Hansen is one of the rare heroes in our lifetime, we need more people willing to risk their careers, or life, for the sake of family, nation and humanity and for the sake of the truth.
Another is Gen. Eric Shinseki.

Answer 3

The trouble is your question and the "facts" you present are flawed or wrong.

Dr. Hansen works for the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), where he is director. Not NASA. While overseen by NASA, that would be like saying an employee at Saturn is paid by General Motors.

NASA is an Independent Agency of the federal government, thus they report to Congress, not the Executive Branch. It is the job of Congress to investigate any "inappropriate" actions by employees that work for Independent Agencies.

Congress also has the right to investigate if the Executive Branch has interfered with or altered findings by Independent Agencies or brought pressure on them to alter facts being present to Congress.

That's the real issue.

"The NASA mission statement says 'to understand and protect our home planet'," Dr. Hansen said. "If I didn't speak out on this issue I wouldn't be doing my job."

Answer 4

Wow! Here is evidence that a backer of the democrat party is using government to discredit republicans.

Do you think democrats are going to seek his removal? Do you really think democrats want to expose their tool? Do you think they want to be exposed supporting the fraud of global warming? Please, what would Algore do?

The democrats were the ones who demanded congressional hearing to investigate why hansen was muzzled just before the 2004 and 2006 elections. These hearing were never held after the elections. Their outrage never investigated because they knew the answer.

Now we do too!

Added: Dude, you just don't get it. The congressional hearings were not stopped or prevented by the executive branch, they were never going to be held.

Hansen gets paid to make the claim that he is being muzzled before the election. He makes the claim he's being muzzled to anyone who listens, even on TV news programs. For a man who's being muzzled, he sure talks a lot.

Democrats fake outrage, demand hearings, just to make Bush look bad and to skew the election their way.

After the election, no one ever mentions hansen being muzzled again. The papers don't mention it and the public forgets about the whole thing, except that Bush is a crook.

And hansen is a paid operative of the democrat party, not a scientist.

Global warming is not a scientific argument, it's a political argument, and you are the tools that are being used to forge politics by one party.

Answer 5

Hansen hasn’t been sacked for exactly the same reason that (most) politicians aren’t sacked: because we just accept the “lies” that they tell as a way of life.

When a politician says “Vote for me and I guarantee you’ll be better off!” do we really believe that what he’s saying is an absolute fact? Of course not, we know he’s just saying that in the hope that we’ll be persuaded by it to do what he wants us to do: which, in this case, is to vote for him.

Do we think he’s lying? Well, possibly, but we prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he was just stating his *opinion*. His opponents, of course, would certainly say he was completely wrong and they could probably provide valid data to “prove” it (again, in their opinion).

This is just the way politics works.

Hansen, in most of his public speaking, is doing exactly the same thing. For example, in his testimony to the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming of the United States House of Representatives on 26 April 2007 he said that “…sea level is already rising at the rate of 3.5cm per decade…” due to “…ice sheet disintegration.”

But is that true? Well, a paper that appeared in Science in March 2007 by Shepherd and Wingham concluded that ice sheet disintegration was contributing only 0.35mm per year to sea level rise, which is 3.5cm per *century*.

So, was Hansen lying? Should he be sacked?

Well, as with the politician, the answer is probably: no, because he’s doing exactly the same thing. He’s simply offering his *opinion* in the hope that we’ll be persuaded by it to do what he wants us to do: which, in this case, is believe in global warming and apply pressure to those in power to do what Hansen wants.

So, in conclusion, there are two things that you should keep in mind when you hear what Hansen has to say…

1. He’s behaving like a politician.

2. Do you trust politicians?


As ever with global warming - don't believe the hype.

:::EDIT:::

We’re not actually here to discuss sea level rise, so I won’t go into that (I just picked it because it was the first issue discussed in the article I linked to as my source).

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe for one minute that they are “honestly mistaken”. I believe that politicians and Hansen alike, know full well that they are … how did Al Gore put it?... over-representing the facts.

Thus, I believe that, when Hansen was writing the speech mentioned above, he asked himself “How much sea level rise can I get away with?” Did he quote 50ft? No, of course not, he’d have been laughed out of town, just as a politician would be if he claimed “Vote for me and I’ll abolish all taxes!”

Clearly Hansen made a claim that was within the bounds of possibility, one which, we assume, he had data to support (as any politician would have), but was it a true and fair reflection of *all* the data on the subject? I would suggest it was not.

Let’s face facts, what politician would publicly admit to anything that impugns his pledges or policies? So, would we seriously expect Hansen to say “I was going to claim that sea levels have been rising by 3.5cm per decade, but I’ve just seen this report that demonstrates that the rise has actually been only a tenth of that figure!”

Of course not, he wants you to believe that GW is going to be a big problem, so he’ll conveniently ignore that new report. And if anyone does mention it he’ll belittle it and claim it’s invalid. Let’s be honest here, that’s exactly what happens, isn’t it? Whenever I link to a source that disputes any aspect of AGW, the alarmists will immediately attack it as being funded by oil companies, or not by a climate scientist, or some other petty excuse. No matter how rigorous the study, it’s instantly invalid.

Let me give you a clearer example…

If we were to ask Hansen “When was the hottest year of recent times?” Would it be a fair bet that he would quote the GISS temperature data set that he has a hand in maintaining? Would you agree that it’s likely that he’d quote “his” data set? So he’d say 2005, yes?

But that’s the *minority* view. All other temperature data sets (for example GHCN, HadCRUT3, MSU Satellite) say 1998 is still the hottest year. So, since 1998 outnumbers 2005 by 3 to 1, the *fair* answer would be 1998.

Well, I think it is. What do you think?

Now, let’s not get into the whole issue of whether he’s quoting 2005 because it best supports the dodgy predictions of temperature rise he made back in 1988, but doesn’t it remind you of the sort of selective data that a politician would quote to show that the promises he made in an effort to get himself elected have turned out to be accurate?

Science is about facts, but GW isn’t about facts, it’s about opinions, and opinions are the stuff of politics.

Answer 6

because anyone who has any power is also in a position to be bribed... also, the plan is to enslave mankind... so of course the government won't get in its own way.

Answer 7

Right...can you show me the spoof website you got this from? And wow, you really wanna see ur children die, don't you?

Answer 8

Non sequitur...anthropogenic boncombe...must sterilize...

Answer 9

Because anthropogenic global warming is real and not a conspiracy?

Naaaah, that can't be it.

Answer 10

Because he hasn't committed a real crime and nobody cares.