Dr. James Hansen: Esoteric Environmental Activist

compiled by Lewis Loflin

Dr. James Hansen, a prominent climate activist and former NASA scientist, has an estimated $17 million net worth. His paid activism funded by environmental groups and political figures like Al Gore. Hansen’s reliance on esoteric computer models, which the Heinz Foundation describes as “hidden knowledge… not known by the general public,” raises questions about his scientific objectivity, as I’ve critiqued in my climate alarmism article. As a Deist, I advocate for empirical science over spiritual ecology, emphasizing transparency, the cyclical nature of climate, and practical solutions, as I’ve explored in my previous articles.

Hansen’s Activism: A Paid Agenda

Hansen, often presented as a “NASA whistleblower,” leverages his former position at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) to boost credibility, despite not being a climate scientist—his degrees are in physics and astronomy, and his specialty is computer modeling. Records show he received $270,000 from the John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Foundation for his activism, with additional funding of up to $720,000 from George Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI), channeled through the Government Accountability Project for media and legal support (*Investor’s Business Daily*, 9/24/2007). Hansen has denied direct OSI funding, but *Investor’s Business Daily* stands by its reporting.

With a net worth of $17 million, Hansen’s wealth stems from such payments, not his NASA salary, highlighting his role as a paid activist. He contributed to Al Gore’s *An Inconvenient Truth*, and in 2008 called for criminal prosecution of climate skeptics for “crimes against humanity and nature,” equating nature with human value—a religious, not scientific, stance, as I’ve critiqued in my Spiritual Ecology Versus Science article. This aligns with environmentalism’s quasi-religious tendencies, viewing nature as a divine entity, as I’ve noted in my Spiritual Ecology article (*Science Under Siege*, p. 358).

Esoteric Models Over Empirical Science

Hansen’s predictions rely on “esoteric” computer models, described by the Heinz Foundation as “hidden knowledge… not known by the general public,” suggesting a mystical rather than scientific approach (*Heinz Foundation*). These models, as I’ve argued in my climate alarmism article, violate the scientific method by lacking transparency and verifiability. In 1971, Hansen’s models predicted global cooling, warning of a new ice age due to fossil fuel use (*Investor’s Business Daily*, 9/21/2007). By the 1980s, he flipped to global warming, predicting a 3°F rise in 50 years and claiming 2005 as the hottest year on record—later debunked, as I’ve referenced in my Southwest Virginia article (*NASA Earth Observatory*).

Hansen’s data adjustments at GISS, revealed after an amateur blogger exposed errors, involved arbitrary “bias” adjustments, raising or lowering values by degrees and discarding readings to create sharper warming trends (*DailyTech*). His refusal to disclose methods mirrors the secrecy in climate science I’ve critiqued in my Science Rejected by Alarmists article, undermining trust in a $400 billion-a-year industry. This lack of transparency, as seen in the Climategate scandal, prioritizes agenda-driven outcomes over empirical evidence.

Climate Cycles: A Natural Perspective

Hansen’s alarmism, such as his claim that climate zones are shifting faster than species can adapt (35 miles per decade vs. 4 miles), ignores natural climate cycles, as I’ve documented in my climateshifts and hypsithermal articles. Post-Ice Age warming 11,000 years ago enabled life in the Ohio and Tennessee Valleys, with species adapting to shifting zones without human-induced CO2. Modern warming, a net 0.15°C since 1940, is part of this cycle, not a crisis (*NASA Earth Observatory*). Hansen’s invocation of “Noah’s commandment” to save species reflects spiritual ecology, not science, as I’ve critiqued in my spiritualecology article.

CO2’s role, at 0.04% of the atmosphere, is overstated compared to water vapor (40,000 PPM), a far greater climate driver, as I’ve argued in my homeostasis article. Hansen’s flip-flops—claiming soot caused cooling in 1971, then warming in 2003—highlight the unreliability of his models, which failed to predict the 2008–2015 global cooling period, as I’ve noted in my Southwest Virginia article.

Hansen’s Censorship Claims: A Misrepresentation

Hansen claims NASA censored him, citing a 2005 incident where a 24-year-old public affairs officer, George Deutsch, barred him from an NPR interview (*AP*, 3/19/2007). Yet, as Rep. Darrell Issa pointed out, Hansen was cited in over 1,400 interviews in a year, and I found 58 YouTube clips of his statements—hardly censorship. As a federal employee, Hansen is subject to employer constraints, as I am in my own job. His use of NASA’s name to bolster credibility, while speaking as a private citizen, is an abuse of position, as I’ve critiqued in my Science Rejected by Alarmists article. Deutsch, who resigned over the fallout, described Hansen as a “loose cannon” and “alarmist,” a view echoed by colleagues (*DailyTech*).

The Environmental Industrial Complex: Funding Activism

Hansen’s activism is funded by the environmental industrial complex (EIC), which I’ve estimated at $1.5 trillion in 2024 for core sectors like wind, solar, and research, as detailed in my Estimate of the Environmental Industrial Complex article. The broader EIC, at $2.1–2.3 trillion, supports activists like Hansen through grants and media campaigns, as seen with OSI’s $720,000 contribution (*Investor’s Business Daily*, 9/24/2007). This funding, often opaque, mirrors the secrecy in climate research I’ve critiqued in my Science Rejected by Alarmists article, where government grants—$31 billion annually in the U.S.—distort scientific priorities, as I’ve noted in my swva_environmentalism article.

Hansen’s $17 million net worth underscores his financial stake in the EIC, far beyond his NASA earnings. This aligns with James Lovelock’s critique of science’s captivity to funding, as I’ve explored in my James Lovelock article, where scientists trade independence for grants, pensions, and tenure (*The Ages of Gaia*, Preface).

Practical Solutions Over Alarmism

Hansen’s alarmism, predicting a “climate tipping point” within a decade, ignores practical solutions like nuclear power and hydraulic fracturing, which Lovelock supports, as I’ve highlighted in my How Bacteria Created Natural Nuclear Fission and Lovelock Backtracks articles. The Oklo reactors, operating naturally for millions of years, demonstrate nuclear safety, yet environmentalists’ technophobia hinders progress, as I’ve critiqued in my Environmentalism’s Fear and Loathing of Technology article (*Science Under Siege*, p. 356). Hansen’s focus on wind and solar, part of the EIC’s $1.5 trillion core spending, overlooks energy reliability, as I’ve noted in my Estimate of the Environmental Industrial Complex article.

Technological advancements since Hansen’s 1970s ice age predictions have reduced pollution and improved efficiency—fiber-optic lines and manufacturing innovations have cut resource use, as I’ve documented in my Lovelock backtracks article. These solutions, rooted in science, counter Hansen’s fear-driven narrative.

A Deist Perspective: Reason and Transparency

As a Deist, I prioritize empirical science over the spiritual ecology Hansen’s rhetoric reflects, as I’ve critiqued in my Spiritual Ecology Versus Science article. His rumored $17 million net worth, amassed through activism, reveals a financial motive, not a scientific one in my opinion. Climate change is normal, as I’ve shown in my climate studies, and Hansen’s esoteric models lack the transparency required by the scientific method. We must focus on verifiable data, not “hidden knowledge,” and invest in practical solutions like nuclear power, ensuring science serves humanity, not political or religious agendas.

Moving Forward: Science Over Activism

Dr. James Hansen’s role as a paid activist, with a rumored $17 million net worth, highlights the dangers of conflating science with ideology. His reliance on esoteric models and lack of transparency undermine trust in climate science, a $400 billion-a-year industry. By prioritizing empirical evidence, acknowledging natural climate cycles, and supporting practical solutions, we can address environmental challenges with reason, not alarmism, fostering a sustainable future grounded in truth.

Updated 2025 by Lewis Loflin.

Click to Visit!