During all the argument about global warming that has gone on over the past decade, warming activists have questioned the motives of defenders of traditional energy sources, implying they are all funded by fossil fuel companies. The motives of those warning of the risks of global warming have rarely been questioned, implying they are only worried about the planet and nothing so crass as accepting money for their efforts.
Now, it seems, they had normal acquisitive instincts, as well. And some of them have done quite well, I might add.
NASA records released to resolve litigation filed by the American Tradition Institute reveal that Dr. James E. Hansen, an astronomer, received approximately $1.6 million in outside, direct cash income in the past five years for work related to — and, according to his benefactors, often expressly for — his public service as a global warming activist within NASA.
This does not include six-figure income over that period in travel expenses to fly around the world to receive money from outside interests. As specifically detailed below, Hansen failed to report tens of thousands of dollars in global travel provided to him by outside parties — including to London, Paris, Rome, Oslo, Tokyo, the Austrian Alps, Bilbao, California, Australia and elsewhere, often business or first-class and also often paying for his wife as well — to receive honoraria to speak about the topic of his taxpayer-funded employment, or get cash awards for his activism and even for his past testimony and other work for NASA.
Oh, Oh. Normal instincts after all. This will set the sainthood movement back a few years. We already know about Al Gore, of course.
I have long believed that take out the money – the grants – and one would find hardly any man-made global warming adherents. Like Climategate – the scandal at East Anglia University – this is just one more nail….
The science does not support Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming but the grant money does. Those who get the grants won’t come clean if they want future business, will they? So in the absence of evidence you make up computer models in the hope it will impress the Yahoos, and there are plenty of those around. More people though are noticing that the lack of evidence, but boy did a lot of grifters get rich.
Best scientific website: Wattsupwiththat.com
This is ridiculous. The guy published BOTH a list of funding sources which are prohibited AND a list of actual funds received, where most of it isn’t prohibited, refers to all of it as a problem (in his title) and he calls prize money “income”.
Sorry, but I don’t care enough about global warming to pretend to be this gullible just for fictional point scoring.
So, Tanner, you’re OK with the $1.6 million ?
Prize money IS income. If you doubt that, try winning a prize and not reporting it as income to the IRS.
Kind of like the Saudis rewarding state dep’t types ,after they leave State, with consultation gigs.
@ Michael
In what circumstance could I not be okay with someone winning $1.1m in prize money? I haven’t heard of these places awarding the prizes, have no idea who his competition was, nor could name any past winners. That something I rightly do not have an opinion about. Why do you?
I am interested in his income from promotion of AGW, which is a destructive hoax that could flatline the economy even worse than it has done so far. The “prizes” you refer to are income and probably related to his positions on AGW.
I’m concerned and you aren’t. Pretty simple.
Now, if he has won $1 million in a spelling bee or a foot race, you’d probably be right..