NASA's Jim Hansen Engages In Personal Foreign Policy

As per the Hatch Act, federal employees have the right to participate in political activities in their own name. No, it's not quite the same here, but there are First Amendment parallels. While I admire Hansen for doing this as a concerned citizen and a bona fide climate expert, he should be making it clear that he isn't necessarily representing NASA when he does this.

But this is certainly a finger in the wind by Hanson, to see what he's going to be able to get away with in the new administration. It'll be interesting to see what comes next.

Actually, what Hanson will find is that he'll have more impact as a climate expert if he doesn't meddle in State Department affairs. He should be working this issue from the inside, not on the outside.

It is completely appropriate for Dr. Hansen to express his personal opinion on any political issue in any forum.



Public policy discussions are always a mixture of facts and opinion. And as Sen Moynihan said, "everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts." This needs to extend to the people qualified to determine the facts.



The difficulties arise when the press and the public are not able to differentiate between opinion and fact. Dr. Hansen's only obligation is to be clear when he expressing opinion and when he is expressing fact.

The opinions are his, the climate change facts were developed by NASA.

The Freedman column is interesting, thanks for posting. He spends almost the whole piece correctly lauding Hansen for his work and activism. At the end, he argues rather weakly that AMS erred by politicizing itself, giving the piece an odd, desultory feel.

As to the question of the appropriateness of Hansen's interposing himself in foreign policy, I wonder if he's received tacit or explicit permission from the administration to do so.

I do not view this as a foreign policy activity. It appears no different then anyone going to a townhall meeting and stating their Opinion.

I do not know how he Identified himself. If he stated this is NASA's opinion, he does have some explaining to do.

Editor's note: uh, Scotland is a foreign country and Hansen directly inserted himself into a Scottish political debate.

As Americans, we all have the right to advocate for what we believe in. I would rather hear educated scientists advocating for a cause they believe in, than someone like Paris Hilton or a Senator that might be more concerned with gathering votes than what is right.

I would be glad to hear scientists on both sides of this an other issues debating logically and with facts.

Editor's note: WRT "As Americans, we all have the right to advocate for what we believe in." Uh, yea - in America. No one loses their right to freedom of speech by working for the Federal government. But when federal civil servants insert themselves into foreign political debates that is usually done either by the State Department or with the formal blessing of the State Department. I would really like to see what would happen if a NASA civil servant other than Dr. Hansen decided to start fiddling around with political issues in a foreign country - openly using the "NASA" affiliation as Hansen does. I am certain Hillary would stomp on them quite promptly.

I don't know. Suppose for the sake of the argument, a middling level State Dept employee, an undersecretary charged with African affairs let's say, had gone on record saying that the practice of female circumcision in some African nation -- let's call it Yolamba -- was barbaric, that as an American accustomed to other pracices he was opposed to female circumcision, and that he urged all concerned Yolamban citizens to support the opposition Yolamban National Congress in forthcoming elections rather than the ruling Yolamban Peoples Union because the YNC was opposed to female circumcision, unlike the people in the YPU. Female circumcision, he might argue, is linked to prostitution and the spread of various sexual diseases, including AIDS, and as such it's practice was a matter of international concern. He urged other people thoughout the civilized world to share his concern and express this to Yolambans by all possible means.

Would we crucify this guy? Would we argue that he had stepped beyond his bounds? I think the situations are analogous. What makes it "different" are that we think of Scotland as being "more like us" than obscure African countries, and that female circumcision is regarded as abhorrant by virtually all Americans while global warming is still a matter being debated.

Editor's note: on one hand you have a point - a small one. On the other hand, to concoct a fictitious scenario and then equating the morality of global warming with female circumcision is just dipping into sensationalism when sensationalism is not needed. As such, you are now firmly in Hansen's camp in that regard. Sometimes less arm waving is better than more arm waving in achieving a goal.

Hansen likes to call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fear. Where is the 1/27/2009 news on NASA Watch about Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor, Dr. John S. Theon, Declares Himself a Skeptic - Says Hansen 'Embarrassed NASA'?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/#more-5352

Editor's note: uh, Scotland is a foreign country and Hansen directly inserted himself into a Scottish political debate.

Uh

As long as he is not on NASA Travel Orders and did not state he was speaking for NASA an a private party did not pay for his travel because he is a NASA employee it appears OK to me. If he is on personal travel he can do as he pleases so long as as he does not indentify himself as a NASA spokes person.

I really do not know any of these things. So I maybe OK it maybe NOT ok.

NASA scientists are free to travel the world as anyone else is and speak up or make presentations as long as they follow the export control/ethics regulations.

It is like the Church telling Galileo to be quiet, the earth is FLAT and we are the center of the universe.
I am certain Hillary would stomp on them quite promptly.
Or there is no such thing as the BIG BANG.
Have at it Hillary.

Hansen has always been a grandstander, seeking the limelight by whatever means, but this time he has gone too far. Whatever the specific circumstances that produced his unfortunate comments, Hansen is too strongly identified with NASA to make the "private citizen" claim, nor should he be placing himself in a position where some may assume he speaks for the United States.

If this were the first example, he might be excused for excessive hubris, but it is not. This past September, he embarrassed himself, his agency, and his country by testifying on behalf of domestic terrorists in the UK who were on trial for eco-vandalism at a coal plant in Kent. The basis of his argument was that it is acceptable to break the law in the higher cause of preventing carbon dioxide emissions. Using his line of defense, it would be perfectly OK for me to stuff potatos up the tailpipes of the SUV's in my neighborhood.

He should be fired, regardless of the merits of his conjectures about global warming.

The "foreign" policy aspect of this is a red herring. Only countries, states, etc. with something wrong with them have an issue with advice and opinion from elsewhere.

On a technicality, this is not actually strictly speaking a "foreign" issue since Scotland is to the UK as California is to the US (i.e. Scotland, just like England, is not a sovereign state but rather a constituent state of the UK). It's more like a British scientist giving advice or opinion to Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Editor's note: huh? That is just goofy. Scotland - the UK - whatever- is a foreign country.

Either way, no scientist should every fear national boundaries to save politicians blushes.

Well... ...I live in Scotland, and certainly appreciate any input from a respected scientist into what would otherwise be a merely political debate. I might add that Alex Salmond's political party stands for 'nationalism' and 'socialism'- go figure.

Bob Shaw

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/climate/hansen.pdf

Somewhere there is (or was) a law that forbids private citizens from independently interacting with foreign gov'ts, so as to avoid (in theory) the problem of foreign powers getting different signals from different parties. That's why we have a State Dept.

You know, the law that Jesse Jackson kept violating a few years ago with his trips on behalf of hostages, our prisoners of war, etc.

Does that apply here? Is it even still a law?

Y'all are missing some basic points here:

1. Hansen wasn't travelling to Scotland; he wrote a letter. It didn't say that he wrote it on NASA letterhead. That would be the stickier situation. He either wrote it on his letterhead as a member of the Columbia faculty (which he also is), or, in his personal capacity; and I bet if he did either of the latter two, he didn't mention his NASA position. It's the UK media mentioning that.

2. I think the world would be better off if more knowledgeable scientists and engineers would speak out in areas where they have some expertise. Most hold back, most of the time.

3. The only reason the world might save itself from a true climate debacle is that a few people like Jim have been trying to get folks' attention for a lotta years. Then in the last 8 years the worst polluter on the planet actually went in the exact opposite direction than was needed. THAT is what is criminal. Not scientists like Jim trying to do something about it.

4. For the AMS to give him an award like it did is very significant, in my view. Meteorologists and climate scientists often don't see eye to eye; maybe it's the short-term vs. long term mindset, I dunno. Yet they are honoring him, specifically his bravery in doing more than just publishing technical papers in obscurity while the world heats up. The Washington Post writer is wrong; Jim deserves the award, and my hat is off to AMS for having the guts to brave the controversy and give it to him.

Jim has probably concluded that he and we can't wait yet another 20 years while things continue to get worse (and they are getting worse). Someone who speaks truth to power like he does and puts his name to it - doesn't do it anonymously - is unfortunately very rare in NASA. We need more like him, in all of our disciplines. Not all the reformers have been killed off; but they are leaving, one by one.

What ranking US diplomat Joseph Wilson calls the “celebrity statesman tour” begins this month, with lawmakers and personages from all sides of the political spectrum visiting Iraq. Wilson notes that these visits, as well-meaning as they are, violate US and UN sanctions on non-accredited US citizens meeting with Saddam Hussein, and, in his opinion, help “create an illusion of legitimacy for the dictator.”

violate US and UN sanctions

I do not think this applies to Dr Hansen.

Mr. Cowing,

Thank you for being a stand-up guy about this. I very much respect that you are willing to criticize those with whom you otherwise agree when they deserve criticism. You have earned credibility for yourself that the more shrill proponents of global warming theory have sacrificed.

Government agencies have very well known guidelines for employees to clearly distance their publicly expressed personal opinions from official government policy or to have those public expressions properly vetted as representing official policy as approved by Constitutionally acceptable processes. It is self evident that public servants must discipline themselves to adhere to such practice or if not, then to be so disciplined by their management.

Dave, Please. It takes no bravery at all to take this position. Its the politically correct norm. On the contrary it takes bravery to render an opinion that questions Hansen's to even the slightest degree. You'll find few people who disagree with the idea that we need to find honest alternatives to fossil fuels, that pollution needs to be controlled, and that we need to improve the efficiency of energy use wherever sensible. What is in question is how much man's impact is and therefore what we can affect, and how much of climate change is a normal long term cycle with periods of 100-1000s of years driven by forces we cannot control. I think if we could start assessing this from the center, rather than a "left" or "right" absolute political position I think there will be more success and acceptance.

By the way is Mr. Hansen et al willing to publically confront China and developing countries on this subject? Surely they are not off limits for some reason? One wonders how much traction he would have if he wasn't a NASA employee and hadn't received funding from certain groups http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jake-gontesky/2007/09/26/global-warming-alarmist-james-hansen-shill-george-soros

If he didn't raise this issue as a NASA scientist (Dave Huntsman has it right, was this a letter from Hansen on NASA letterhead?) If not, then more power to him.

In this context, what I'm puzzled about Keith, is your accusation of "dragging the word 'NASA' into the discussion every time". Not sure who you're referring to here. Hansen? The press? Please elaborate.

If Hanson is making these statements in the name of NASA, then he needs to have his hand (gently) slapped. If he's making these claims as a private individual or an academic on the basis of NASA satellite data or NASA sponsored analysis that's in the public domain, then it's no problem.

Mountain? Or molehill?

If I had been as publically vocal as this guy at my job, I would have been fired a long time ago, and rightly so.

But he can play the victim and political correctness about global warming protects him.

Just the difference between private corporations and gubmint I guess.

My personal thoughts are that Hansen hurts the cause he fights for. Unless the cause is himself, that is another story.

Dave, Please. It takes no bravery at all to take this position. Its the politically correct norm.

No, it wasn't when he started; and there has been active pushback from vested interests over the intervening years that have made things worse. You're taking credit for a 'norm' that Jim was instrumental in creating, starting in the 80s, when the Reagan Administration tried to muzzle him.

I think if we could start assessing this from the center, rather than a "left" or "right" absolute political position I think there will be more success and acceptance.

The only link you refer to is itself a far right wing reactionary site. Jim's working off of data and their consequences to the best degree he can figure it out; that site is a right-wing dogma and attack site.

By the way is Mr. Hansen et al willing to publically confront China and developing countries on this subject? Surely they are not off limits for some reason?

In the time you took to repeat that phrase that you got from the right-wing websites, you could have googled Hansen and China and found some references.
In the short interview on this page he puts the UK, US, Germany and China in context.

http://tinyurl.com/alr39u

Well, on the one hand it does seem as if Hansen wasn't talking in NASA's name but in his quality as a proeminent climate scientist (he can take credit from his NASA work without speaking in the name of NASA). However, Keith is kinda right I think, in that whenever a figure of authority speaks even in their own name, theif affiliation is never far away. There can't really be such a thing as a private citizen speaking publicly when this citizen is in a proeminent governmental position.

Having said that, and whilst I do think that sometimes people like him do us all a disservice by being too forceful or media-oriented in their public debate, you have to keep that in perspective. Because we have been conditioned by the mainstream media, it seems somehow that when climate skeptics and so on pour nonsencical vitriol on the debate it's OK, but when reasonable scientists or Greenpeace do step a little bit over the mark, they're being hysterical.
Also, you have to understand that whilst we, the public, have at large only become conscious of climate change dangers in the last five years or so, Hansen & co have known about it for 20 years, so it's easy to understand their frustration. Think about the snailpace of space projects developments and how it annoys us all, and think what it would feel like if you believe that every delay actually endangers the planet and the humans on it more and more. Maddening.

I think its fine as long as 1. He does it on his own time. 2. He makes sure that it is known that it is his own personal opinion and not NASA's or the US government. "Scientist for NASA" is a job credential that lends him credibility, which is fine to use AS LONG as he represents that title as a personal credential and not as him speaking as a spokesperson for the entire agency.

Where is the Hanson letter? We are speculating otherwise about something we have not seen.

Any "Dr" is always free to use his/her title in signing a letter.

An individual referring to studies, even if they were involved, originators, or have a name for themselves in that field, is doing nothing more than any citizen unassociated with the same studies can do.

The matter legally would come down to use of letterhead, use of a title such as "NASA Director etc" in the correspondence etc, or wording implying an official relation to the agency the individual works for.

But again...where is the letter?

Now propriety is another matter, a matter of judgment. But legality and propriety are different matters. As is credibility or what's diplomatic.

Again...who has a copy of the letter? This raises all sorts of interesting ethical and legal issues.

I myself once conversed with a high level French ArianeSpace official. Upon entering the topic of the US space programs "making poor decisions as compared to the French" ...well lets just say the topic had been broached and this was immediately a technical discussion (my judgment). Diplomacy ended. One does not have to say one is representing one's own opinions if the context is technical and obviously one's own in spirit and wording...Just starting with "I believe you'll find..." says as much.

So...what's the letter ACTUALLY SAY?

Should we turn over the reigns to Ceasar to save us?

If Hanson's right and we are all going to die if we don't do what he says, then even if he is breaking the law, he is right in his method.

Even if he is right what are we then saved for? Merely to live and obey?