Global Warmmongers often complain that critics (such as TCSDaily) are funded by Big Oil. But I guess it's all right when James Hansen is funded by George Soros.

Frankly, I'd rather see arguments based on data, rather than funding sources.

The most glaring money problem, Chicom money, funneled to the Democrats AGAIN. Nobody seems to be upset that. I've not heard even one Republican, Libertarian or Conservative say that. Why? This is twofold problem,

A.) China is involved in directly supporting candidates for "X" office in our country. (no foreign country should be involved)

B.) The Democrat / Liberal people are willing to say that Big Oil is NOT allowed to donate to candidates for "X" office. But China IS allowed. (any legitimate, American legally standing, person, group, or company should be allowed a voice)

To allow foreign countries or non-citizens into the voting or donating, well that's just stupid and dangerous.

Not sure about Chicom money going to Democrats. Would like some substantiation because I believe it is actually illegal for outsiders to fund American political campaigns. I would welcome some education on this point and will go find out.

More importantly, the second issue concerning Hansen. If Hansen's work is deliberately biased in one direction or the other by tampering with the data then we have a very serious case of Academic Fraud. If it can be proved that Hansen altered the data for profit then the entire University research system has to be suspect.

Academic Freedom is a privilege but it carries with it the responsibility for absolute honesty in collecting, analyzing and publishing results.

Conclusions drawn from the data may be subject to interpretation, but the data is just that.

If an American company should be allowed a voice, what about a transnational company with interests in the US? In general, I think that the responsibility of elected officials is to look out for the best interest of the United States, whereas a transnational company would be looking out for its own best interest where that interest, given its interests both in and out of the US, may or may not coincide with the best interest of the US.

I'm reminded of Stephenson's Snow Crash, where in the future the US Government is still a part of the power landscape, but transnational companies really seem to hold greater sway over the world.

My libertarian streak says that everything would work out pretty well if we'd have government stick to a policy of making sure nobody uses force to control anyone else's behavior. I'm not afraid of a transnational company as long as they can't (with impunity) hire goons and black helicopters to destroy my new company which is in competition with theirs. (You don't like our buyout offer? Allow us to persuade you.) Of course, I also need to know that the government isn't going to destroy my new company.

Andy,
several MSM outlets have asked the question of where the HSU money comes from. The NYT surmised it's from China. That would be the same suppositions as when Gore got a big fat check from Chinese Monks years ago. Oddly NOBODY seems interested enough to find out where that money originates. But is it a stretch to think Chinese guys, with no visible means of support, giving money to anyone, should be disclosing the origination of that funding?

Jeff,
if the transnational has a home office in NYC, LA or Boise, they should be allowed, within legal limits, to support a candidate. When the home office is in Prague, Hong Kong or Melbourne, NOT A DIME should be allowed. Even if the lions share of business is U.S. based. If they want a voice, they can move the home office to NYC, LA or Boise.

Just that the "critics" don't publish much scientific studies. (Or a lot of what they do are really lousy like the Archibald one.)

On the other hand, Hansen has published some essays lately too, about scientific reticence and ice sheet dynamics / albedo flip, which are a bit hard to verify by themselves, being in so general overview style.

I've heard from Michael Tobis that the ice dynamics people are quite uncertain what will happen in the Antarctic. Remember, these numbers were not included in the IPCC report. It could yield much increased sea levels on top of the IPCC numbers in some scenarios. But it's very hard to put numbers there.

Steve,

Thanks for the info. I agree sources should be known for all monies going to campaigns over a certain sum. I still don't think that foreign ers, individuals or corporations should be able to make contributions.

As far as Trans-national companies are concerned how do you handle a notionally US company that locates somewhere overseas for the tax advantages?

Rand, read the NASAwatch article. James Hamsen was not funded by George Soros. That statement is not in the report referenced. If you actually read the report referenced, an institute that Soros funded reported that they gave Hansen "legal and media advice". Not money. Legal and media advice

Advice != money.

Also, according to the article in NASAwatch, they gave him this advice "after officials at NASA ordered him to refer press inquiries to the public affairs office and required the presence of a public affairs representative at any interview." (quote marks theirs, emphasis mine). So in any case, this isn't an example of his biasing his research in favor of the guys providing him advice, since the advice came after

(Hell, I wish advice were equal to money! I'd be rich!)

This is one that the blogosphere is spinning into way bizarre regions-- there's no point in joining them in their fantasy worlds.

James
Hansen accepted no money from GAP

James Hansen accepted no money from GAP

No money, just a Mercedes driven by a lawyer on standby whenever he calls. That's worth what?

He also should ask GAP to look into Garcetti v. Ceballos. Based on CBS's story. Hansen didn't make his claim against the government as a private citizen, but as "the head of NASA's top institute studying the climate."