When scientists like James Hansen are so involved in political matters, does it undermine their credibility?

Question

I say it does. What say you?

Answer 1

yes, but who is he?

Answer 2

As more and more scientists step forward and acknowledge that man-made global warming is a myth... yes these "scientists" will continue to lose credibility.

Answer 3

Yeah.  This is especially true since his temperature projections have been more or less correct.  Were it not for his getting involved in political matters, like being asked by Congress to testify before them (the same as Lindzen has, but in the case of Lindzen, his political involvement makes him look more credible, despite the fact Lindzen is consistently wrong), Hansen would no doubt be getting all his temperature projections completely wrong.  

Excellent question.  Two thumbs up *and*  a swish.

Answer 4

First you have to show that James Hansen is acting out of political interest... I'm going to call your bluff right now and say that you can't do that.

Second, if your theory is true and that acting to change the political response is tantamount to having a tainted credibility in and of itself, then what you're really saying is that anyone who wants to be taken seriously should just sit down and shut up.  I think that the world you're trying to create is a world that breeds corruption by actively negating the actions of concerned citizens.

How about denier "scientists"? (Who are usually not actually scientists, or are often not speaking within their fields... and usually have little to no data regarding their "opinions" and when they do - it's often cherry picked more selectively than the Iraq WMD intel)

I think what you're trying to get at is the idea that there's a double-standard here when we dismiss the deniers because they're largely bought and paid for by the oil companies and/or have political agendas.

The difference is... we reject them because their arguments against climate change aren't scientifically or logically sound.  In science, there's a concept called the causative fallacy.  While the fact that they fudge their numbers is just correlation, we can readily hypothesize that the money coming from big oil and their allies could be a common cause for the fudging of said numbers.  Either by itself means nothing... together, the facts against the denier scientists speak for themselves.

If you could establish that James Hansen has a political agenda (and you can't because he's actually harming his career by doing this) you're still going to have trouble establishing causation.  

Of course, you've already decided and this wasn't really a question that I'm responding to... so believe what you will.

Answer 5

Yes. It brings their objectivity into question. Total objectivity is not possible, but they should steer clear of any associations that might be perceived as bias or have an influence on their results.

Answer 6

Well it doesn't seem to affect the faith that warmists have in his findings.  

His climate theories have become widely accepted since he managed to find that 2007 tied with 1998 as the second warmest year despite no meteorogists being able to find that.

Answer 7

Receiving money from a political campaign is different than receiving money from an oil corporation.

Scientists need to be above the appearance of taking sides if they wish to keep their objectivity.

Taking $250,000.00 from John Kerry's foundation, then endorsing him is a quid pro quo.  

Taking money from George Soros was just wrong.  These are gvmt employees.  They should only work with money assigned to them by congress.

Answer 8

Of course it does.

But he has no credibility to begin with.

Quotes like this should frighten anyone who puts their faith in scientists:

"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 tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. Scenarios that accurately fit recent and near-future observations have the best chance of bringing all of the important players into the discussion, and they also are what is needed for the purpose of providing policy-makers the most effective and efficient options to stop global warming."

He's effectively saying that it's OK to exagerate to push your cause. He's a zealot! Not a scientist.

Answer 9

Congress invites Hansen to testify before them in 1988, because he's one of the top-climate scientists working for the government.  That doesn't sound too involved.

He has published well over 100 peer reviewed journal article and is referenced by 1000's more because he's an excellent scientist.  That doesn't sound too involved.

A political appointee (something like a 25 yr-old with no science) who worked on the Bush campaign tried to prevent Dr. Hansen from speaking publicly about his research findings (non-defense related) without first getting it censored by this 25 yr-old political appointee.  I think that's completely wrong, but Hansen wasn't the one entagling science and politics.

Hansen advised Kerry on issues. That's completely allowed by any government employee. Getting hired by the government doesn't take away one's constitutional rights.

Hmm, unless you have some evidence, I'd have to say your entire question is based on a false and unwarranted assertions.

Answer 10

I don't think so.  Tell me if I'm wrong.

Answer 11

nothing