NASA’s Hansen made up to $750,000 on the side in 2010
October 12, 2011 by Don SurberGovernment bureaucrat James Hansen pulled down up to $750,000 last year in speeches and prize money. The American Tradition Institute reported: “As it waits for the resolution of its Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which seeks the outside employment permission records of global warming activist Dr. James Hansen, American Tradition Institute’s Environmental Law Center has received the belatedly filed 2010 public financial disclosure of the renowned director of the NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”
More than half the extra income came from the $550,600 (£372,000) or 50 million yen Blue Planet award from the Asahi Glass Foundation at the University of Tokyo on October 26, 2010.
[...]
$750k in outside income in 2010.
As the Director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Hansen’s gubmint salary could be anywhere from $120k to $200k.
Hansen is also an “Adjunct Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University’s Earth Institute.” Columbia’s Earth Institute is a non-scientific, greentard, interdisciplinary program run by an Enviromarxist economist, Jeffrey Sachs. Columbia’s actual school of earth and atmospheric sciences is the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Adjunct professors at Columbia University earn anywhere from $25k to $186k per year.
So, three-time arrestee and premiere junk scientist James Hansen is almost certainly a million dollar bureaucrat.
Hansen’s major “accomplishments”…
He freely admits to modifying data to obtain desired results…
Hansen’s results are far more deserving of this…
Than they are of this…
October 21, 2011 at 05:03 |
If you want to see a genuine re-analysis of the raw data rather than just another Tmin/Tmax rehashing, see: J.-L. Le Mouël et al., Evidence for a solar signature in 20th-century temperature data from the USA and Europe, C. R. Geoscience (2008)1.
Funny how the peer-reviewed re-analysis of J.-L. Le Mouël et al., 2008 merited no headlines apart from WUWT and other skeptic outlets, while BEST’s non-peer-reviewed rehashing it in THREE INCH headlines around the world.
Speaking only for myself, I’ve never had much of a problem with HadCRUT3, apart from their misrepresentation of the uncertainty in the data & analysis. GISTEMP is the one in which “the nature of the measurements obtained” appears to have been improperly influenced “so that the key evidence can be obtained.”
BEST has basically added a fourth GIGO to the mix.
October 31, 2011 at 05:38 |
All legacy weather station temperature data I have seen simply sucks. Their statistical assumptions are totally false. Their analysis ignores all validation of requirements on those assumptions, which is a good thing from their point of view since none of the assumptions can be met. n=1 x 30 per month does not equal 30 degrees of freedom.
Accurate estimates of error are rarely provided and when provided are absurd calculations.
How can you discern a ‘significant’ point 6 to point 8 degree increase in temperature when the legacy “instrument limit of observability error” alone equals +- point 5 degrees.
These clowns would not know a replicated random sample if it bit them in the ass.
Sheesh.
November 9, 2011 at 02:47 |
Adjunct professors don’t make ANY money from the university.
March 2, 2012 at 15:15 |
[...] all “mainstream climate scientists” are unpaid volunteers. [...]
March 3, 2012 at 17:00 |
[...] all “mainstream climate scientists” are unpaid volunteers. [...]
March 3, 2012 at 18:29 |
[...] all “mainstream climate scientists” are unpaid volunteers. [...]
March 5, 2013 at 10:01 |
[...] More improper activity from the Million Dollar Bureaucrat… [...]
March 5, 2013 at 18:01 |
[...] More improper activity from the Million Dollar Bureaucrat… [...]