I’m all for full disclosure on both sides; it appears you allow exceptions if it’s an “award” instead of a “payment” or perhaps even a “grant” for that matter? If that’s accurate, it’s too bad — regulatory election committees, auditors and we as readers would want it all disclosed too; a corporate as well as foundation money trail can be disguised in many ways (regardless of how it is in this case). It takes a very brave scientist to antagonize funding source on any argument — Dr Hansen bravely did that with this administration; but did he do so entirely without prejudice and without a job/$$$ net? Armed with a complete picture, we’re in a position to decide for ourselves.

Finally, secrecy/surprise has nothing to do with the repetitive disclosure examples I posted earlier. When money, support or ownership is involved, the public has the right to know and judge for themselves, every time. Full and repeated disclosure is appropriate in this case — it’s the price one pays for accepting such an “award.”

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001994538

“The American Association of Petroleum Geologists has presented its annual journalism award to Michael Crichton for his two novels, “State of Fear” and “Jurassic Park.”

“The first, a current bestseller, profiles global warming as a puffed-up threat imagined by a conspiracy of evil scientists. ….

“Crichton will be given the award at the group’s annual convention in Houston in April.”

The recent NYT article about Hansen mentioned it, it’s no secret; the concern about secret payments is what’s raised such a fuss in journals recently — it’s the people who hid the fact that they’d been paid to take a position, who are somewhat embarassed when the information is disclosed.

Seems to me that such facts should be a part of every one of James Hansen’s public pronouncements — after all, it’s the common and repetitive disclosure practice for media parent companies of CNBC, CNN etc; therefore, it should be good enough for him (and let the reader/listener weigh its importance).

“Science fantasy for hire”

“In a news article in the current issue of Environmental Science and Technology … the “marketing letter” Thacker discovered puts a spotlight on the shadowy world of hired gun consulting companies whose task is to muddy the waters sufficiently that the regulatory wheels grind to a halt. Those of us in the business know this goes on all the time, but it is still startling to see the strategy spelled out in black and white.”

Same tactics used against bisphenol-A and tobacco researchers. Details in the original article here:
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/feb/business/pt_weinberg.html

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article345926.ece

Best,

D

G.

“…some interests are more special then others…”

DOBBS: It’s at the very least troubling. It is an opportunity for us to take a look and find out what is going on because Dr. James Hansen is our guest here tonight. It’s good to have you here. He’s worked for NASA for nearly four decades.

He first warned Congress about the dangers of global warming two decades ago. He’s now director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and joins us now. It is good to talk with you. It is unfortunate that we’re not talking about some of the great, great discoveries that are made. All that NASA accomplishes.

The idea that a 24-year-old political appointee has the sway to influence whatever you say or do not say about science, it just infuriates me to tell you the truth.

JAMES HANSEN, DIR. NASA’S GODDARD INST.: Yes, it’s good to be here. I have to first note on the advice of counsel that I speak on the basis of my 39 years of NASA but I don’t speak for the agency.

DOBBS: So stipulated and understood.

HANSEN: And I don’t specify policy or criticize policy. I let the data and its policy implications speak for themselves.

DOBBS: Your feeling is, after studying the data for a mere 400,000 years, would that be about right?

HANSEN: Yes, we have good data for 400,000 from the ice scores in Antarctica.

DOBBS: And your conclusion is?

HANSEN: Well, the conclusion is the earth has warmed about .08 degrees Celsius, which is about one and a half degrees Fahrenheit in the last century, most of that in the last 30 years, while greenhouse gases have been increasing very rapidly and the main point that I was trying to make is that we’re getting very close to a point of no return.

If the planet warms more than two degrees Fahrenheit additional, we will begin to have a very different planet.

DOBBS: And why did the Public Affair’s Office not want you to share those concerns?

HANSEN: Well, global warming is a sensitive topic. Yes. And the public should know about it. My job, the first line of the NASA mission is to understand and protect our home planet and that’s the reason that I’m speaking out.

DOBBS: And the public affairs office? Didn’t understand the mission?

HANSEN: Well, they apparently feel that it’s OK to filter the information going to the public. Which is, from a scientific point of view, you have to present all the data. Not filter it. But from the public’s point of view, they’re the ultimate policymaker. So they have to have the information. And so they have to get the whole story.

DOBBS: They have to get the whole story. Michael Griffith, a scientist himself, a man I personally respect, his background is extraordinary, the administrator. How has he reacted here in your judgment and has he been supportive of you and the need to have one of our leading scientists be able to openly speak? I mean taxpayer pays your salary.

HANSEN: Yes, that’s right. And he has said exactly the right things that NASA is open but as yet, Public Affairs does not admit they’ve done anything wrong. And frankly, the story that came out was that as a 24-year-old. But no, in fact, he was doing what he was told by the higher ups.

DOBBS: By the Public Affairs Office.

HANSEN: Absolutely.

DOBBS: Which has had extraordinarily influence unlike any other Public Affairs Office in any other agency that I’m aware, the NASA P.A. Office is very powerful. Do you think you’re going to see a change here? Or do you face, as the charge says, dire consequences if you speak out?

HANSEN: Right. I think there’s a good chance that, because we do have a really good administrator and he said he’s going to fix problem. But this is not limited to NASA. In fact, the problem more serious in NOAA and still worse in EPA.

DOBBS: NOAH and EPA two of our most important agencies, if not most important agencies, in point in fact, in terms of looking at our climate, our ecology and what we’re doing to both.

HANSEN: Right.

DOBBS: Dr. James Hansen, we thank you for your courage. We thank you for being here. Let’s hope that this administration does the right thing, failing that, let’s hope that Michael Griffin has the courage and the character that I suspect of him of having and we thank you for your display of both qualities.

Although it is a bit hard to tell from the excerpt of the questions and answer session extracted by Hank, what Pat is saying is that emissions reductions would only lead to a temperature savings of about 0.1C by the year 2050 (assuming a sensitivity that produces a 4C rise for a CO2 doubling). Pat is just citing some preliminary calculations that we had done which proved ultimately to be similar to the temeprature savings calculations published by Wigley in GRL in 1998.

So I don’t think this is a sign of any inconsistency on Pat’s part.