Now that Dr. Hansen has turned political, is it time for him to step down at GISS?

Question

Jim Hansen has stopped being a scientist and has turned into a federal prosecutor seeking to put oil executives on trial for exercising their right to free speech and working to unseat members of congress.

Now that he has departed from working on science, should he step down as the head of the GISS?

Can any member of the scientific community be a political activist AND keep his scientific objectivity? I don't think so

Hansen has already proven that he could not be objective when he took $250,000.00 from John Kerry as a gift before Hansen gave Kerry his endorsement for his failed presidential campaign.

If so-called "global warming" was real, then the argument should be won on the strength of the scientific facts. Hansen is such an inept scientist that he can't form a well thought out conclusion to his theory.

Since Hansen can't win the argument, then he's seeking to win by using the force of the gvmt. It's time to step down and run for office, Jim

Answer 1

Charges of libel are pending, I assume.  

http://www.medialaw.org/Content/Navigati...

"Public figures, such as government officials, celebrities, well-known individuals, and people involved in specific public controversies, are required to prove actual malice, a legal term which means the defendant knew his statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statement."

From the link:  http://www.giss.nasa.gov/

"The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), at Columbia University in New York City, is a laboratory of the Earth Sciences Division of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center and a unit of the Columbia University Earth Institute."

Seems like it's time to lean on Columbia University's alumni/patrons.  Universities tend to hate negative PR.

Answer 2

Dont be so naive. Big oil is the one politicizing it. They hire dozens of political think tanks to spread lies and deciet through the corporate media.

Big oil has been up to its tricks for 80 years. They bought and paved over all the nation's ELECTRIC street car systems.

They are strikingly similar to Big Tobacco which still denies that nicotine is addictive.

Answer 3

Because of those d**n speculators that we are experiencing this oil crisis..

Answer 4

Frightening to say the least.

"He is also considering personally targeting members of Congress who have a poor track record on climate change in the coming November elections. He will campaign to have several of them unseated. Hansen's speech to Congress on June 23 1988 is seen as a seminal moment in bringing the threat of global warming to the public's attention. At a time when most scientists were still hesitant to speak out, he said the evidence of the greenhouse gas effect was 99% certain, adding "it is time to stop waffling"."

Not only should Hansen step down, but stunts like this will be a huge setback to convincing the public of any action.

"Can any member of the scientific community be a political activist AND keep his scientific objectivity? I don't think so."

I completely agree. It is one thing to "sound the alarm" of possible consequences of GW, but James Hansen, a government-employed scientist, is taking it way too far.

There are objective and intelligent scientists who agree with AGW. James Hansen isn't one of them.

----------------

Edit:

Please, Dana.

"How telling is it that the deniers attack Hansen for going after oil companies for spreading misinformation?"

Hansen is a government employed scientist, and yet you think it is OK for him to start suing people? OK for him to campaign to have congressman with less-than-perfect voting records on climate change unseated? Hansen can do this if he wants to, but not while still a scientist on the payroll of the government. And if he does start these campaigns, then he loses whatever credibility he had left--he is no longer an objective scientist (which has been the case for some time).

Shame on the denialists? Shame on you, Dana.

Answer 5

This is a serious story?!  And they're on trial for "thought crimes" and doing their jobs?  Wow...it's seems really bad in the UK, freedom-wise (at least they're not that obvious here yet).  Oh wait this is here.

Will we be next for being "deniers?"