A Brief Summary of James E. Hansen’s NASA Ethics File
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.
Ethics laws require that such payments or gifts be reported on an SF278 public financial disclosure form. As detailed, below, Hansen nonetheless regularly refused to report this income.
Also, he seems to have inappropriately taken between $10,000 and $26,000 for speeches unlawfully promoting him as a NASA employee. This is despite NASA ordering him to return at least some of the money, with the rest apparently unnoticed by NASA. This raises troubling issues about Hansen’s, and NASA’s, compliance with ethics rules, the general prohibition on not privately benefitting from public service, and even the criminal code prohibition on not having one’s public employment income supplemented. All of this lucrative activity followed Hansen ratcheting up his global warming alarmism and activism to be more political which, now to his possible detriment, he has insisted is part of his job. As he cannot receive outside income for doing his job, he has placed himself in peril, assuming the Department of Justice can find a way to be interested in these revelations.
The following summarizes records produced by the Department of Justice to resolve litigation against the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for refusing to comply with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request regarding the required financial disclosures Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
These records are his applications for outside employment or other activity (form 17-60), approvals and accompanying documents, and public financial disclosure (form SF 278).
As detailed in the American Tradition Institute’s lawsuit which yielded these records, Hansen suddenly became the recipient of many, often lucrative offers of outside employment and awards after he escalated his political activism — using his NASA position as a platform, and springboard. This began with a strident “60 Minutes” interview in early 2006, alleging political interference by the Bush administration in climate science.
Hansen acknowledged this timing on his website, noting that first he was offered an award of “a moderate amount of cash– $10,000″ by an outside activist group. He claims to have turned this down because of the nominating process (without elaborating what that meant), and because of the impropriety of appearing to be financially rewarded for his outspokenness (“I was concerned that it may create the appearance that I had spoken out about government censorship [sic] for the sake of the $”).
Given that Hansen makes no bones about his (often outrageous) outspokenness and activism being, in his view, part of his job, this surely is also another way of saying it would look as if he were having his NASA salary supplemented by appreciative activists and others. That would violate the criminal code, 18 U.S.C. 209.
Yet, as the offers soon became larger, Hansen changed his mind.
The records reveal that NASA initially was very direct in warning Hansen of his responsibilities and prohibitions relating to these activities, which covered the subject of his public employment. Later, after Hansen gained much media attention and condemnation of his NASA superiors for (falsely) claiming he had been “muzzled” (the second president named Bush he claimed had muzzled him), certain clear restatements of the law were dropped from the approval letters responding to his applications for outside employment.
NASA oversight of Hansen’s compliance with ethics-related reporting requirements similarly waned. At no point did they seek reconciliation of his serially conflicting attestations detailed here.
Improper Receipt of Outside Income Without Obtaining Advance Permission
Hansen’s 2009 speech at Dartmouth University for a $5,000 honorarium and up to $1,000 in expenses came in violation of the clear rule against promoting his appearances as, or emphasizing his job with, NASA. It also had not been approved. NASA’s Deputy Chief Counsel Laura Giza, after admonishing these violations, demanded he return the improperly obtained money:
“[Y]ou may not accept the offered honorarium and travel expenses. If you’ve already received this money, you need to return it to Dartmouth.
Also, in the future, if you have not received word that one of your outside activity requests has been approved, or at least that the legal office has concurred in the request, you should contact the Goddard legal office about the request before engaging in that activity. NASA regulations require that you obtain approval for certain outside activities…prior to engaging in that activity. 5 CFR 6901.103(d).”






When’s the last time the Left cared for conspicuously paying attention to societal ideas about law or morality?
They look at themselves like superheroes, the ends justifies the means. The Left thinks it’s in some kind of constant war but without an end game they can name other than “social justice.”
A more idiotic or corrupt group of pirates from a stereotype factory would be difficult to find outside of a “white privilege” conference.
You can bet that Hansen would welcome any forthcoming prosecution. He would immediately claim partisan persecution and could readily count on a compliant media and sycophantic, mindless, Alarmist followers to protect him. Screw him. Prosecute with extreme prejudice.
We see two great cards being played from the radical leftist hand – ‘It’s OK if I do it because I’m right!’ And the ‘helpradical help I’m being oppressed!’ What is it with these people and their persecution complexes?
How did that helpradical get in there? Clearly I brought this on my self by commenting from a DROID. How silly of me.
“What is it with these people and their persecution complexes?”
-No, it’s just we take exception to some who use our air & water as open sewers, for their profit, so society can clean up after them…
OK?
What utter nonsense. No one uses “our air and water” as an “open sewer”.
I would describe that as “brainless hyperbole” but that would imply that it is mere exaggeration.
It is utter piffle, a classic false dichotomy, which anyone who was born before 1960 (including Hansen) knows (or ought to know) full well.
OK?
So, there is no (more) pollution? Thank god for letting me know, how’d i miss the big clean-up….
-and who paid for it?
Continuing with the usual false dichotomy, I see.
I’ll throw in another concept: diminishing returns.
And I’ll add another: collateral benefits.
“….some who use our air & water as open sewers….”
You mean the HPs, Apples, IBMs, plastics manufacturers, Exxon-Mobils, Sonocos, auto manufacturers, steel manufacturers, energy producers, etc., who all conspired to manufacture your home toilets, PCs, cars, clothes and other luxuries to provide you and your family’s comfortable lifestyle? And let’s not forget there are 7 billion other we’s in this world who should have a say regarding what “pollution” should or shouldn’t be, and also have a stake in “our air & water”. Or, when you say “we”, is it a royal “we”, meaning environmentalists only?
The point is that Jim Hansen is a thief living on the taxpayer’s dime, and an alarmist AGW proponent to boot. And that’s OK with you, because you are trying to change the subject?
Oh, i’m to somehow feel guilty about certain industries profiting, by letting society at large absorb the clean up costs and other hidden health costs…
No, it doesn’t work that way my friend. And these same industries buy off key law makers at state and federal level to subsidize their pollution, now trying to cut out any regulation at all (…like it was prior Love Canal). No, it’s no hyperbole. It’s the old sleight of hand trick:
“…Look at how bad Hansen is…” while Koch Industries and Massey Energy profit at my expense.
NASA and ethics? After 28 years there I can say they have none. FWIW, Hansen did not fare well in an OIG investigation but any enforcement action entailed a very high politcal price so the Bush world left him alone…
Jimbo’s two months younger than me and it’s way past time he was put out to grass, he can definitely be classed as a daft old fart and greedy too.
I hope they throw the book at him, he should be made an example of, it might save the US a few trillion dollars in Glowbull warming costs.
First an objection anyone who has put so much of his life in to unethical behavior desirves more than a brief history. Two the amount that the country has suffered at the hands of Dr. Hanson deserves book treatment.
Don’t forget his initial gift of $750,00 from Soros and $250,000 from John Kerry’s wife’s Tides groop way back when this fiasco began……
This has always convinced me to distrust Hansen – that and the fact that he once upon a time advocated global cooling in the 1970′s.
But – I may be wrong…
Nah!