Anonymous asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 9 years ago

Why has James Hansen perpetuated the global warming myth for money?

Doesn't that denigrate his finding when he uses them to make millions? Why are so many fooled.

NASA’s James Hansen is back in the news for two reasons. He has a new paper claiming that the Moscow heat wave during 2010 and the Texas heat wave during 2011 provide a form of statistical proof of global warming. The pause in warming must be justified somehow! The study was quickly refuted by several commentators, most devastatingly by Lubos Motl.

The second reason Hansen is in the news is that he failed to report some $1,600,000 of outside income over several years as required by his contract for government employment. Normally, TWTW would not bother with such, but this is an exception for a number of reasons. One, in 1988 with great publicity, Hansen announced with great certainty that global warming threatens humanity. Two, with great publicity, Hansen declared that President Bush was trying to muzzle him. And, three, he was cited as the scientific advisor of Al Gore’s scientifically disgraceful film. Apparently, Hansen believes that his celebrity status exempts him from the regulations that govern other government scientists.

We can’t say it enough: global warming alarmism is not science. It is politics at best, outright fraud at worst.

9 Answers

  • Ian
    Lv 5
    9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I'm sure he is totally unbiased when it comes to AGW though. Lol... that's what the True Believers think anyways.

  • Maxx
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    Hansen is an anti-capitalist shill that is being well paid for his services. My understanding is that he gets away with his shenanigans because the upper echelons of GISS are even bigger leftist than he is.

    Read this to see what Hansen believes:


    Once respected global warming stalwarts like NASA's James Hansen descended into political and ideological activism by being arrested multiple times protesting coal use. Hansen also endorsed a book which calls for '"ridding the world of Industrial Civilization". Hansen declared the author "has it right...the system is the problem." Hansen did this despite the fact that the book proposes '"razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine." The Grist eco-magazine writer David Roberts noted in August 2010: "'I know I'm not supposed to say this, but James Hansen managed his transition from scientist to activist terribly. All influence lost."


  • niraj
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    enable's be honest, Dana, they're doing the very similar aspect theory proponents who attempt to discredit scientists funded by Exxon are doing (and we both know there are countless them doing that). it is not honest to lambast the perception warring parties without taking a crack on the =proponents= as well. both part pick to structure up. That suggested, definite, it is fully ridiculous to intend that Hanson is being bribed to lie about climate change. As Bob has so aptly positioned it, it is technological awareness, and what counts is the records. Hanson could be receiving funding from the devil and it would not make a huge difference. leads to technological awareness are not on the marketplace to the optimum bidder.

  • 9 years ago

    The entire article is just political rhetoric. Claims like: "It is more likely that the Pope would renounce Christianity than that Hansen, Michael Mann, etc., would change their minds about global warming, regardless of the evidence. (I say that because the Pope has far more intellectual integrity than the climate alarmists.)"

    The comment about the pope says it all really for the validity of any of the statements in the article.. So 1 Scientist didn't report $1,600,000 of his income what has this got to do with the science of global warming? Or do you actually think the entire science of climate change is based on what Al Gore, James Hansen and Michael Mann say?

    @The OP a quote taken from your own answers to do with congress: "95% of all pols need to be dragged from their seats of power and horse whipped. About half of those then need a summary execution. All they care about is getting in office then staying in office and making themselves monstrously rich."

    Think that negates any validity for your question.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • JimZ
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    It was quite a long time ago when Hansen came up with his theories. I think it obviously brought him fame and fortune. When Mann released his first paper, he had just gotten his PhD. It brought him fame and fortune too. I think they both instinctively knew that their wild claims would be widely read. I couldn't claim to know that that would be their motivation. What I do know is that wild claims like theirs tend to be supported by the media. UMass (if memory serves, before Penn State) certainly moved Mann up the heiarchy much quicker than normal. Hansen followed a similar route to fame and fortune. Alarmists would like us to believe that you can't question someones motives unless of course they work for Exxon Mobile.

  • 9 years ago

    Are you actually suggesting that there might be more money in being a Warmist than a Skeptic?!

    You mean that the notion that Exxon contributes to a few web sites

    to the tune of 90 thousand dollars since 1998

    does not mean that all Skeptics are financially motivated flunkies of the oil industry?!

    What a radical concept!;_ylt=Ajc2n...

    That would mean that people would have to {gasp!} actually look at the evidence themselves,

    rather than depend on what the media claims is a "consensus"!;_ylt=Ajc2n...

    Isn't that "anti-science"? [1]

    Besides, everybody knows that James Hansen is infallible. As Jushchy says: "No one knows more about climate than this guy." [2] Consider his quality explanations of what global warming would do. [3] He should know, after all, he made those computer models that were used to predict climate change. [4] Had it not been for him, we would not now know that West Side Highway will be under water as soon as CO2 doubles its 1988 concentration of 350 ppmv CO2. [5] At the current rate of increase of 20 ppmv CO2 per decade, it should only take until 2163 for this to happen, assuming that CO2 concentrations will continue at the current rate. [6] Given how CO2 concentrations have behaved in the past, that is highly unlikely. [7]

  • 9 years ago

    I'd say it's possible that his ideological views are clouding his scientific objectivity. Of course, I thought that long before I knew of his personal income.

    Now I can add though that it's possible that his ideological views are affecting his integrity.

    I wonder how he would answer my recent question?;_ylt=Am...

  • 9 years ago
  • 9 years ago

    Because this is a dipstick copy-cat lie. Instead of learning science you are quoting a tea-party moron website whose neo-con crackpot authors have zero expertise in science, deny evolution, deny climate science, and recycle the dumbest of oil-company funded myths.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.