Posted By Marc Morano – 2:07 PM ET – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov

   Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom - Get the Facts on James Hansen

‘High Crimes Against Humanity’ Trial for Climate Skeptics?

Weblink to Part Two of Fact Sheet on James Hansen:  

NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fears.

[ See: UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says 'lock up the oil men' – June 23, 2008 & UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for 'high crimes against humanity' for spreading doubt about man-made global warming – June 23, 2008 ]

Sampling of Key Information about NASA’s James Hansen (for full articles, see below): 

1) Proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics. The oil money's paltry contribution pales in comparison to the well funded alarmist industry. (LINK)  

2)  Earth has COOLED since Hansen’s Dire Climate Warning in 1988 (LINK) See 1988 vs. 2008 temperature chart here:

3) Hansen’s Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis challenged by UN Scientists and new peer-reviewed studies. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

4) Hansen who alleged Bush administration muzzled him -- did 1,400 on-the-job media interviews (LINK)

5)  Media Ignores Skeptical NASA Scientists' Claims of Censorship (LINK) & (LINK)

6)  Hansen's Claim that his 1988 Hottest Day testimony was the result of being ‘lucky’ is refuted – ‘We were just lucky (LINK)


7)  Reality Check: Senator Admits Hot Day and AC Failure during Hansen’s 1988 Testimony was ‘Stagecraft’ (LINK)  

 8)  An August 2007 NASA temperature data error discovery has lead to 1934 -- not the previously hyped 1998 -- being declared the hottest in U.S. history since records began. (LINK)  

9)  Hansen Received $250,000 from partisan Heinz Foundation & Endorsed Dem. John Kerry for Pres. in 2004 (LINK)  

10)  Media Darling Hansen Assailed by NASA Colleagues (LINK)

11) Scientist Alleging Bush Censorship Helped Gore, Kerry (LINK)  

12) Hansen conceded that use of “extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” (LINK)  


 NASA’s James Hansen Information Sheet 

UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says 'lock up the oil men' – June 23, 2008

Excerpt: Veteran climate scientist James Hansen is marking the twentieth anniversary of his seminal speech to the US Congress on global warming by calling for oil company execs to be locked up for denying global warming.

UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for 'high crimes against humanity' for spreading doubt about man-made global warming – June 23, 2008
Excerpt: Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist· Speech to US Congress will also criticise lobbyists· 'Revolutionary' policies needed to tackle crisis - James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer. Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech to the US Congress - in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming - to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the "perfect storm" of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable. Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading. [Note: See March 2008 report on how skeptics reveal “horror stories” of scientific suppression and the July 2007 comprehensive report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]

Reality Check: Challenge to Hansen's funding data claims. The oil money's paltry contribution pales in comparison to the well funded alarmist industry.  See full funding report here:

Excerpt: Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, but the Magazine chose instead to focus on how skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades. Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment & Public Works committee, explained how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions. “In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one," Carter wrote on June 18, 2007.


Earth has COOLED since Hansen’s Dire Climate Warning in 1988 - According to Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo

See how global temperatures have declined according to NASA satellites since Hansen’s first testimony in June of 1988. See temperature chart HERE.

Excerpt: Here is the plot of actual NASA satellite monthly temperatures since June 1988. Note we are colder than in 1988. See larger image here His testimony will no doubt include reference to upcoming or ongoing dangerous rises in sea level and ignore the data. See larger image here He will also no doubt repeat his claim he is being muzzled. He confuses a muzzle with a megaphone as shown by this table of actual Hansen media references by year.


What Muzzling? Chart documenting James Hansen’s Massive Media Megaphone – By Professor Roger Pielke, Jr., professor in the environmental studies program at the University of Colorado.

Excerpt: Hansen in the News: 1996-1997 – Must See chart HERE.   


June 23, 2008: Hansen’s Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis challenged by UN Scientist! – (By Richard Courtney, DipPhil, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant.)

Excerpt: The present empirical evidence strongly indicates that the AGW-hypothesis is wrong; i.e. 1. There is no correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and global temperature. 2. Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is observed to follow change to global temperature at all time scales. 3. Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. The global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 1998, and fell from 1998 to the present (i.e. mid-2008). This is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near-constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940. 4. Rise in global temperature has not been induced by increase to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. More than 80% of the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide has been since 1940 and the increase to the emissions has been at a compound rate of ~0.4% p.a. throughout that time. But that time has exhibited 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940. 5. The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent. The AGW hypothesis predicts most warming of the atmosphere at altitude distant from polar regions. Radiosonde measurements from weather balloons show slight cooling at altitude distant from polar regions. The above list provides a complete refutation of the AGW-hypothesis according to the normal rules of science.: i.e. Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed in the empirical data and the opposite of the hypothesis' predictions is observed in the empirical data. But politicians and advocates adhere to the hypothesis. They have a variety of motives (i.e. personal financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism, etc..). But support of science cannot be one such motive because science denies the hypothesis. Hence, additional scientific information cannot displace the AGW-hypothesis and cannot silence its advocates (e.g. Hansen). And those advocates are not scientists despite some of them claiming that they are. United Kingdom


Hansen’s Science Claims Continue to be Challenged - June 20, 2008 - Ivy League Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack Challenges ‘Consensus’ View of CO2’s role in Climate Change (Giegengack is from the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania. Bio Link & Peer-Reviewed Research Link
Excerpt: We know (or we surmise) from model reconstructions (e.g. Berner, Royer, Cerling, and many others) that the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere has been higher, indeed much higher, than it is now for most of Earth history, but the average surface temperature has varied over much smaller amplitude than the greenhouse-gas concentration. If the influence of growing concentrations of greenhouse gases can be isolated from all the other factors that control Earth-surface temperature, we might be able to measure the role of CO2 concentration as a forcing mechanism directly, but we are not there and we probably can't get there (the system is far too complex).  If we could get there, we would learn that the relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature is not linear. There have been times in Earth history when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 5, 10, even 15 TIMES the present concentration, and the climate of Earth still supported animals not unlike ourselves. Indeed, the average CO2 concentration of the atmosphere, if Berner, Royer, Cerling, etc. are to be believed (and they began this work before the history of composition of the atmosphere carried any political implication), has been about 5 times the present concentration. […] One or another Pole has supported a "permanent" ice sheet only for 5-10% of Earth history. […]  The bottom line is:  it ain't that simple.  CO2 is a player, but not the primary, and maybe not even a major, player in controlling, or "forcing," Earth temperature. (


Washington Times: Scientist Hansen who alleged Bush administration muzzled him -- did 1,400 on-the-job media interviews – March 20, 2007 

Excerpt: Hansen Claims NASA Muzzled Him – But - A NASA scientist who said the Bush administration muzzled him because of his belief in global warming yesterday acknowledged to Congress that he'd done more than 1,400 on-the-job interviews in recent years. James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who argues global warming could be catastrophic, said NASA staffers denied his request to do a National Public Radio interview because they didn't want his message to get out. But Republicans told him the hundreds of other interviews he did belie his broad claim he was being silenced. "We have over 1,400 opportunities that you've availed yourself to, and yet you call it, you know, being stifled," said Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican.


Media Ignores Skeptical NASA Scientist’s Claims of Censorship

Skeptical Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, Formerly of NASA, Reveals Being Muzzled – June 3, 2008

See June 3, 2008 report: Media Double-Standard on Global Warming "Censorship" – (LINK)

Excerpt: A NOTE ON NASA'S JAMES HANSEN BEING MUZZLED BY NASA - I see that we are once again having to hear how NASA's James Hansen was dissuaded from talking to the press on a few of the 1,400 media interviews he was involved in over the years. Well, I had the same pressure as a NASA employee during the Clinton-Gore years, because NASA management and the Clinton/Gore administration knew that I was skeptical that mankind's CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming. I was even told not to give my views during congressional testimony, and so I purposely dodged a question, under oath, when it arose. But I didn't complain about it like Hansen has. NASA is an executive branch agency and the President was, ultimately, my boss (and is, ultimately, Hansen's boss). So, because of the restrictions on what I could and couldn't do or say, I finally just resigned from NASA and went to work for the university here in Huntsville. There were no hard feelings, and I'm still active in a NASA satellite mission and fully supportive of its Earth observation programs. In stark contrast, Jim Hansen said whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted to the press and congress during that time. He even campaigned for John Kerry, and received a $250,000 award from Theresa Heinz-Kerry's charitable foundation -- two events he maintains are unrelated. If I had done anything like this when I worked at NASA, I would have been crucified under the Hatch Act. Does anyone besides me see a double standard here?


Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression – March 6, 2008 Excerpt: Hungarian scientist, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist, resigned from his post working with NASA because he was disgusted with the agency’s lack of scientific freedom. Miskolczi, who also presented his peer-reviewed findings at the conference, said he wanted to release his new research that showed "runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," but he claims NASA refused to allow him. “Unfortunately, my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate.  My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results,” Miskolczi said according to a March 6 Daily Tech article. (LINK) [Note: See also July 2007 comprehensive report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]


Washington Post: Senator Inhofe: 'Alleged consensus over man-made climate fears continues to wane' – June 23, 2008
Excerpt: In an e-mailed statement, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) said the bill's failure was proof that Hansen's message had not caught on.

"Hansen, Gore, and the media have been trumpeting man-made climate doom since the 1980s. But Americans are not buying it," Inhofe said. "It's back to the drawing board for Hansen and company as the alleged 'consensus' over man-made climate fears continues to wane and more and more scientists declare their dissent."

December 2007: Senate EPW Minority Report: December 2007: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 - Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Excerpt: Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.  


Scientists continue to declare dissent in 2008:  

June 17, 2008: Top UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Turns on IPCC. Calls Warming Fears: ‘Worst scientific scandal in the history’

By Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist who specializes in optical waveguide spectroscopy from the Yokohama National University, also contributed to the 2007 UN IPCC AR4 (fourth assessment report) as an expert reviewer. Itoh, a former lecturer at the University of Tokyo, just released his new book Lies and Traps in the Global Warming Affairs (currently in Japanese only). Itoh’s new book includes chapters calling man-made global warming fears “the worst scientific scandal in the history.”


PlanetGore: Hansen Claims 1988 Hottest Day Testimony was result of being ‘lucky’ – ‘We were just lucky’ - June 23, 2008

Excerpt: The Washington Post also commemorates astronomer James Hansen's testimony of 20 years ago that started the global-warming panic. They fall for the spin, big time. Here's how the drama opens: There have been hotter days on Capitol Hill, but few where the heat itself became a kind of congressional exhibit. It was 98 degrees on June 23, 1988, and the warmth leaked in through the three big windows in Dirksen 366, overpowered the air conditioner, and left the crowd sweating and in shirt sleeves. James E. Hansen, a NASA scientist, was testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He was planning to say something radical: Global warming was real, it was a threat, and it was already underway. Hansen had hoped for a sweltering day to underscore his message. "We were just lucky," Hansen said last week. Hmmm. As noted below, Hansen's cohort then-Sen. Tim Wirth has made clear that this was as close to orchestrated as they could make it — even attempting to time the temperature market (perhaps that's what Hansen meant by getting "lucky") — and the aforementioned "overpowered" air conditioner actually had just been turned off and the windows left open before hearing time.


PlanetGore: Senator Admits Hot Day and AC Failure during Hansen’s 1988 Testimony was ‘Stagecraft’ – June 23, 2008

Excerpt: Specifically, the PBS series Frontline aired a special in April 2007 that lifted the curtain on the sort of illusions that politicians and their abettors employed to kick off the campaign. Frontline interviewed key players in the June 1988 Senate hearing at which then-Senator Al Gore rolled out the official conversion from panic over “global cooling” to global warming alarmism. Frontline interviewed Gore’s colleague, then-Sen. Tim Wirth (now running Ted Turner’s UN Foundation). Comforted by the friendly nature of the PBS program, Wirth freely admitted the clever scheming that went into getting the dramatic shot of scientist James Hansen mopping his brow amid a sweaty press corps. An admiring Frontline termed this “Stagecraft.” Sen. TIMOTHY WIRTH (D-CO), 1987-1993: We knew there was this scientist at NASA, you know, who had really identified the human impact before anybody else had done so and was very certain about it. So we called him up and asked him if he would testify. DEBORAH AMOS: On Capitol Hill, Sen. Timothy Wirth was one of the few politicians already concerned about global warming, and he was not above using a little stagecraft for Hansen's testimony. TIMOTHY WIRTH: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. DEBORAH AMOS: [on camera] Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day? TIMOTHY WIRTH: What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn't working inside the room. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot.[Shot of witnesses at hearing]  WIRTH: Dr. Hansen, if you’d start us off, we’d appreciate it. The wonderful Jim Hansen was wiping his brow at the table at the hearing, at the witness table, and giving this remarkable testimony.[nice shot of a sweaty Hansen] JAMES HANSEN: [June 1988 Senate hearing] Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe, with a high degree of confidence, a cause-and-effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.


August 20, 2007: An August 2007 NASA temperature data error discovery has lead to 1934 -- not the previously hyped 1998 -- being declared the hottest in U.S. history since records began.

Excerpt: Revised data now reveals four of the top ten hottest years in the U.S. were in the 1930's while only three of the hottest years occurred in the last decade. Excerpt: "NASA has yet to own up fully to its historic error in misinterpreting US surface temperatures to conform to the Global Warming hypothesis, as discovered by Stephen McIntyre at" (LINK)   [EPW Blog note: 80% of man-made CO2 emissions occurred after 1940. (LINK) ]


Hansen calls skeptics of man-made climate fears ‘Court Jesters’ From August 20, 2007 EPW Report:
Excerpt: NASA's James Hansen calls climate skeptics ‘court jesters’ - In the face of this growing surge of scientific research and the increasing number of scientists speaking out, NASA scientist James Hansen wrote this past week that skeptics of a predicted climate catastrophe were engaging in “deceit” and were nothing more than “court jesters.” “The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present,” Hanson wrote on August 16, 2007. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)   [EPW Blog Note: It is ironic to have accusations of ‘deceit’ coming from a man who conceded in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of “extreme scenarios" to dramatize global warming “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public's attention to the issue --- a disturbing admission by a prominent scientist. (LINK) Also worth noting is Hansen’s humorous allegation that he was muzzled by the current Administration despite the fact he did over 1400 on-the-job media interviews. (LINK) ]  If the scientific case is so strong for predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming, why do its promoters like Hansen and his close ally Gore feel the need to resort to insults and intimidation when attempting to silence skeptics?  [EPW Blog Note: Gore and Hansen are not alone - See: EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic - LINK ]


Meteorologist Anthony Watts: If Global Warming was a company decision, how would you vote? – June 22, 2008

Excerpt: Yet the one consultant that has been pushing this policy change gives an impassioned speech that his data set tells a story that the others do not. Some of the board members who are skeptical of this person and his data that supports the policy change do some research of their own. They discover that the dataset created by the consultant who advocates the policy change has been adjusted at many data points, almost without exception in favor of the policy change. Some board members also learn of some math errors in the data, point out the math errors, and also some of the questionable ways individual data points have been adjusted. the consultant shrugs and retorts “you’re just a bunch of court jesters”. Meanwhile, it has been discovered that one of the business friends of the consultant who has been lobbying board members and staff has a company that trades in air conditioner systems. That person has been traveling to all of the worldwide offices of the company and lobbying the employees to tell them that their work environment is indeed getting hotter, and that the data from his friend the consultant proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt.


Hansen Received $250,000 from partisan Heinz Foundation & Endorsed Dem. John Kerry for Pres. in 2004 - EPW Report on Hansen - July 11, 2006
Excerpt: For example, Brokaw presents NASA’s James Hansen as an authority on climate change without revealing to viewers the extensive political and financial ties that Hansen has to Democrat Party partisans. Hansen, the director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by former Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz. Subsequent to the Heinz Foundation grant, Hansen publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004, a political endorsement considered to be highly unusual for a NASA scientist.  Hansen also has acted as a consultant to Gore's slide-show presentations on global warming, on which Gore’s movie is based. Hansen has actively promoted Gore and his movie, even appearing at a New York City Town Hall meeting with Gore and several Hollywood producers in May. Hansen also conceded in a 2003 issue of Natural Science ( ) that the use of “extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public's attention to the issue --- a disturbing admission by a prominent scientist.

From April 17, 2006 - Media Darling on 'Global Warming' Assailed by Colleagues -

Excerpt: NASA scientist James Hansen, profiled by the New York Times, "60 Minutes" and other media titans as a renowned scientist with unassailable credibility on the issue of "global warming" and a victim of White House censorship, is actually a loose cannon at NASA who lied about the alleged censorship, according to one of Hansen's former colleagues as well as a current co-worker. George Deutsch, a former NASA public relations employee who resigned his job in February, told Cybercast News Service that he was warned about Hansen shortly after joining the space agency. "The only thing I was ever told -- more so from civil servants and non political people -- is, 'You gotta watch that guy. He is a loose cannon; he is kind of crazy. He is difficult to work with; he is an alarmist; he exaggerates,'" Deutsch said. Deutsch provided Cybercast News Service with agency internal documents and e-mails detailing the frustration among NASA public affairs officials over Hansen's refusal to follow protocol when it came to granting media interviews.

From March 29, 2006 - Scientist Alleging Bush Censorship Helped Gore, Kerry -

Excerpt: The scientist touted by CBS News' "60 Minutes" as arguably the "world's leading researcher on global warming" and spotlighted as a victim of the Bush administration's censorship on the issue, publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president and received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by Kerry's wife. Scientist James Hansen has also admitted that he contributed to two recent Democratic presidential campaigns. Furthermore, he acted as a consultant in February to former Vice President Al Gore's slide show presentations on "global warming," which Gore presented around the country.

Senator James Inhofe Speech cited Hansen's financial ties - September 25, 2006
Excerpt: On March 19th of this year “60 Minutes” profiled NASA scientist and alarmist James Hansen, who was once again making allegations of being censored by the Bush administration. In this segment, objectivity and balance were again tossed aside in favor of a one-sided glowing profile of Hansen. The “60 Minutes” segment made no mention of Hansen’s partisan ties to former Democrat Vice President Al Gore or Hansen’s receiving of a grant of a quarter of a million dollars from the left-wing Heinz Foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. There was also no mention of Hansen’s subsequent endorsement of her husband John Kerry for President in 2004. Many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen’s huge grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation. The foundation’s money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune. So it appears that the media makes a distinction between oil money and ketchup money.


Hansen conceded that use of “extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” – September 25, 2006

“60 Minutes” also did not inform viewers that Hansen appeared to concede in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of “extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public's attention to the issue. Why would “60 Minutes” ignore the basic tenets of journalism, which call for objectivity and balance in sourcing, and do such one-sided segments? The answer was provided by correspondent Scott Pelley. Pelley told the CBS News website that he justified excluding scientists skeptical of global warming alarmism from his segments because he considers skeptics to be the equivalent of “Holocaust deniers.”

Media follow up on Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) Comments on Hansen's ‘Ketchup Money’  - September 28, 2006
Inhofe Speech Excerpt: I do have to give credit to another publication, Congressional Quarterly, or CQ for short. On Tuesday, CQ’s Toni Johnson took the issues I raised seriously and followed up with phone calls to scientist-turned global warming pop star James Hansen’s office. CQ wanted to ask Hansen about his quarter of a million dollar grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation, whose money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune. As I have pointed out, many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen’s huge grant from the partisan Heinz Foundation. It seems the media makes a distinction between ketchup money and oil money. But Hansen was unavailable to respond to CQ's questions about the 'Ketchup Money’ grant, which is highly unusual for a man who finds his way into the media on an almost daily basis. Mr. Hansen is always available when he is peddling his increasingly dire predictions of climate doom.

Hansen Bristles when confronted about inconvenient history - May 26, 2006 -
Excerpt: Hansen defended the $250,000 grant from the foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry, during an interview with Cybercast News Service following Thursday's panel discussion. "That was an environmental award," Hansen said. "I can't imagine anyone would turn down an environmental award. You don't check the politics of who provides the awards. I frankly don't understand the question," he added. Hansen bristled when Cybercast News Service asked him about his "extreme scenarios" quote. "It's pure horsesh**. That statement was taken out of context. I did not say that I had ever used extreme scenarios," Hansen insisted before ending the interview. [...] Gore praised Hansen as an objective scientist, ignoring his partisan Democratic Party ties. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Hansen publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004 and received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry. Hansen also has acted as a consultant to Gore's slide-show presentations on "global warming," on which the movie is based. Hansen, who alleged in January that the Bush administration has been suppressing science for political purposes, previously acknowledged that he once emphasized "extreme scenarios" on climate change to drive the public's attention to the issue. In the March 2004 issue of Scientific American, Hansen wrote, "Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate-forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions."

UK Register:  Hansen's 'peculiar thermometer' at NASA (June 5, 2008)

Excerpt: Prominent people at NASA warn us that unless we change our carbon producing ways, civilisation as we know it will come to an end. At the same time, there are new scientific studies showing that the earth is in a 20 year long cooling period. Which view is correct? [...] Whatever motivations NASA had for picking the 1951-1980 baseline undoubtedly have some valid scientific basis. Yet, when the data is calibrated in lockstep with a very high-profile and public political philosophy, we should at least be willing to ask some hard questions. Dr. James Hansen at GISS is the person in charge of the NASA temperature data. He is also the world's leading advocate of the idea of catastrophic global warming, and is Al Gore's primary climate advisor. The discrepancies between NASA and other data sources can't help but make us consider Einstein's advice: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." 

  The scientists at the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Critiques James Hansen – June 6, 2007 Excerpt: As a result of our analysis of Hansen’s testimony, we find very little evidence to justify his policy prescriptions for dealing with what he calls a “dangerous climate change,” but we find significant evidence for an impending world food supply-and-demand problem that may well prove even more devastating to the biosphere – including both humanity and “wild nature” – than what Hansen contends will occur in response to business-as-usual anthropogenic CO2 emissions.


IceCap.Us: Hansen’s Temperature Data Questioned -  The GISS Urban Adjustment - Monday, June 23, 2008

Excerpt: An audit by researcher Steve McIntyre reveals that NASA has made urban adjustments of temperature data in its GISS temperature record in the wrong direction. The temperatures in urban areas are generally warmer than in rural areas. McIntyre classified the 7364 weather stations in the GISS world-wide network into various categories depending on the direction of the urban adjustment. NASA has applied a “negative urban adjustment” to 45% of the urban station measurements (where adjustments are made), meaning that the adjustments makes the warming trends steeper. The table below shows the number of negative and positive adjustments made to the station temperature trends. The urban adjustment is supposed to remove the effects of urbanization, but the NASA negative adjustments increases the urbanization effects. The result is that the surface temperature trend utilized by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is exaggerated.


If Man-Made Global Warming Was a Stock, No Payout - June 11, 2008

Excerpt: If Global Warming were a stock, and you bought it in 1979 at zero (par) and decided to sell it this month to buy a house, 29 years later you aren't very happy with your investment. At it's peak in 1998, the temperature only went to a 0.8 increase, and in April it dipped to very nearly unchanged. Click on link to see temperature data.


National Review - Global-Warming Bubble – June 20, 2008 

Excerpt: Lately, we’ve seen the tech and housing bubbles burst, and now — at least as an urgent political issue — the global-warming bubble is getting pricked.


Poll: most Britons doubt global warming caused by mankind (UK Guardian)

Excerpt: The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer. The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions. [...] There is growing concern that an economic depression and rising fuel and food prices are denting public interest in environmental issues. Some environmentalists blame the public's doubts on last year's Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, and on recent books, including one by Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, that question the consensus on climate change. [...] 'Despite many attempts to broaden the environment movement, it doesn't seem to have become fully embedded as a mainstream concern,' he said.


CO2 hysteria fading fast in China – June 21, 2008

Excerpt: CO2 hysteria fading fast in China - Less than half – 42 per cent – of people in the US think the rising temperature of the planet is a serious problem. In China, the figure is a mere 24 per cent.


Flashback: National Post: Global Cooling! 'Spotless Sun' prompts scientists to fear 'dramatic turn for the worse' – May 31, 2008


Click Here to Read Part Two of Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom- Get the Facts on James Hansen:


# # #