Monday, August 6, 2007

Global Warming Scientist Paid by Heinz-Kerry

This is very interesting information. How do we know who to believe. Follow the money......

You made a statement about Dr. James Hansen receiving $250,000 in some form from a foundation run/financed by Heinz (Ketchup)Kerry. Can you document that? Nobody can hold a candle to the hypocrisy of the Kerrys. They make Al Gore look like a rank amateur.
Dr. Jim Hansen, Chief of the Goddard Space Flight Center's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, N.Y., and one of this year's recipients of a $250,000 Heinz Award, receives his award tonight at a ceremony at the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C.
Dr. Hansen began his lifelong study of the Earth’s atmosphere in the 1970s at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. It was Dr. Hansen’s interest that led the Goddard Institute to concentrate on global climate change.
If a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund) The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they still feel the need to resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics.


Anonymous said...

Man, this really is a pathetic debate. True scientists don't practice their craft to make money - who do you think paid Galileo to study the solar system? The answer, of course, is no one. The mercenaries who sell their intellectual integrity for $10,000 a pop deserve no credit, no admiration, and no attention. Keep on keeping on, and I'll see you on a life raft next to mine in a couple of years...

Anonymous said...

so , this is the place!

Anonymous said...

"True scientists don't practice their craft to make money - who do you think paid Galileo to study the solar system? The answer, of course, is no one. The mercenaries who sell their intellectual integrity for $10,000 a pop deserve no credit, no admiration, and no attention."

To whom was the 2007 anon referring? He/she/it could have been referring to any number of deniers as it is hard to tell what the nature of the above comment is. matter

Anonymous said...

Well Pete, this is certainly interesting. I know that Hansen is your nemesis and that he (along with Al Gore) feels the brunt of your personal vitriol rather frequently.

What I am not sure about is why.

To be more specific: Hansen's credentials are as good as any other scientist on your blog that I've looked at so far. In fact, he is the most credentialed, being a climate physicist first and an expert on greenhouse effects next. Okay, okay, here (if you are still reading) you're going to proclaim that I have an "agenda" and so on, but these are simply the facts of the matter.

Hansen did his Ph.D. on the "runaway greenhouse effect" on Venus; he believes we have entered a new age in which humanity is the major factor in environmental development (the "anthropocene epoch") on Earth.

Is he correct? I don't know (and neither do you).

Anonymous said...

Now, I will say that there are certain associations that Hansen has which, like my own reservations about the deniers in the group, makes me doubt his credibility.

He has involved himself in protests. He has testified in trials. He has been a media presence. He hangs out with Greenpeace. Is he making money off it? - not as clear as the above.

So, okay. I might be willing to discount Hansen for all these reasons. However, Hansen did involve himself in greenhouse alarmist rhetoric well before the debate gained such political momentum - so if he saw the alleged large scale financial rewards that far in advance, he has one hell of a crystal ball. But again, it is not clear that he is getting wealthy.

So where are we with this guy?

Well, if I must discount Hansen because of his associations then we must discount virtually ever other scientist I've looked at so far - fair enough. I certainly have done so.

But I will say this: Hansen is by far the most transparent of all the scientists so far. One can find all his papers on his webpage.
He has also done the most work on the subject so far - he has made a dedicated career out of it.

Anonymous said...

These factors alone give him a great deal of credence.

And Hansen's computerized predictions (if they are to be believed) have been right on the mark. Not only that, he has provided a number of different scenarios, some of which match the current climate trend.

And this is where guys like you and I, Pete, are already way out of our depths.

Case in point: the articles you've posted above. The climate debate could almost be summed up as a debate between children going "yes it is!" "no it's not!" "yes it is!" "no it's not!' ad nauseam. Above you have scientists apparently contradicting other scientists who also stick by their science as a scientist contradicts their science. Either that, or (I suspect) you have a layman attempting to read a scientific source and paraphrase it.

Can you say that a scientist such as Hansen is a less viable source than a blog-post? Really?

Anonymous said...

In the end, Pete, I'm impressed with this guy. There are some definite red flags in his character, no doubt about it.

But overall I'd say your bud Hansen is a formidable warmist.

Which may be why you dislike him so much.