http://www.keyman.uk.com

http://www.keyman.uk.com

Sharon Friedman

You are mistaken about Jim Hansen. Until rather recently, he has been quite politically conservative. And I believe still is, on other than climate issues.

What Hansen is concerned about, in the article Roger has chosen to criticize, stems from his concern that “Efforts to shield expert research and decision making from public scrutiny and accountability invariably backfire, fueling distrust and counter-productive decisions” – especially those “counter-productive decisions”.

But this quote is not Hansen’s, but Roger Pielke’s (in his Prediction for Decision)

“Like on many other subject I don’t share the point of view of James Hansen that civil servant impede is ability to convey his message that the future of the planet his at risk.

1) I believe that his opinion is well known to anyone who has even a very limited knowledge about the subject of climate change.

2) I would like to know if he support the same right to other public scientist that don’t consider that the planet is at risk. I mean if we consider that he refused to appear in a congress commity (I believe it was the one where the Wegman report got released) because he didn’t like some of the invited scientist.

3) If he doesn’t like the direction the government imposes on the organisation he is working with then he is free to do what he consider to be the right thing. How many scientist have resigned from the IPCC because they didn’t like the political direction the process took.

James Hansen is politically and openly affiliated to the democrat. He openly discuss that strong action should be taken to mitigate CO2. It would be about time for him to decide if his action or desire wouldn’t be better served if he was part of a lobbying group than as a civil scientist.”

“Dear Roger,

Interesting plot on your prometheus blog. I wanted to make a comment
if possible (it doesn’t seem to let me sign on even after creating an
account).

After looking at your graph, I wondered if the increased frequency of
Hansen citations in google news is relevant. Over lunch break, Erik
and I discovered a few things:

(1) It seems you got your data by googling James Hansen, with no
quotes, thus overestimating how much the particular James Hansen of
interest is quoted in the news. I can get the exact same numbers as in your
graph that way — for example, 2740 in 1996 and 9040 in 2007.
However, it seems like a lot of articles that appear using this
search term are not related to James E. Hansen of NASA GISS. For
example, many are about a Republican in Utah, or other deceased
people named James Smith or Steve Hansen. After trying: James Hansen
NASA, “James Hansen”, “James E. Hansen”, “James Hansen” “climate
change”, I think that the search term with the highest relevant yield
is simply: James Hansen NASA. Using this, he gets only 37 articles
in 1996 and 1080 in 2007. That’s not quite the 25 articles a day
being claimed. Still, that’s a big increase, but on to the next point.

(2) I also searched for: climate change. If you then normalize
the number of citations for James Hansen NASA by the number for
climate change, you don’t see any increasing trend over 1996-2007.
Maybe that’s not necessarily the best way to normalize, but the point
is that while there are x100 more references to Hansen now than in
1996 there are also x100 more references to climate change, I.P.C.C.,
etc. It’s just a hotter topic now (ha ha ha).
The prometheus plot does not reveal anything about trends in administrative
interference with public statements by civil servants.

Daven Henze and Erik Noble”

RESPONSE:

Thanks guys. I assume that non-NASA “James Hansen” mentions will be more or less random, and your point 1 seems to confirm this.

On your conclusion: “The prometheus plot does not reveal anything about trends in administrative
interference with public statements by civil servants.” — This is indeed what the graph shows.

‘We’ pay for the research that these government employees perform, usually in the context of long-term programs originally established by bi-partisan Congressional action. Therefore, it normally should be unlawful (as in the Freedom of Information Act), for an administration to act to withhold the results of such research from the public – when it’s because those results conflict with the administration’s political agenda.

It’s important to realize that when politicians hire scientists they will play politics with science. I don’t think that there is any practical way to avoid it except avoid having government hire scientists.

There is no shortage of independent research being done, I guess I have a hard time understanding what Hansen’s complaint really is.

It’s important to realize that when politicians hire scientists they will play politics with science. I don’t think that there is any practical way to avoid it except avoid having government hire scientists.

There is no shortage of independent research being done, I guess I have a hard time understanding what Hansen’s complaint really is.

Len, Dr. Hansen works for the government. The administration appoints the heads of these offices. We pay for these offices. We elect the people who appoint the heads of office and how to distribute the money. The appointees report to the administration and is accountable to the administration who we elect. Now put a Government employee who’s pay and accountability is to him/her self. If you do not like the current administration then vote. Thank you Roger for an honest thread. “A government powerful enough to provide everything is powerful enough to take it all away”. Thomas Jefferson.