As NewsBuster Jake Gontesky reported, an editorial in Investor's Business Daily Monday claimed one of billionaire leftist George Soros's foundations gave $720,000 in 2006 to the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen.
Since this editorial was published, according to LexisNexis and Google News searches, not one major media outlet has reported these allegations.
Maybe even more shocking is that had press outlets looked into this matter - you know, acted like journalists instead of advocates! - they would have found Hansen's name prominently mentioned in the 2006 Soros Foundations Network Report (relevant section on page 123):
Scientist Protests NASA's Censorship Attempts
James E. Hansen, the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, protested attempts to silence him 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. The Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower protection organization and OSI grantee, came to Hansen's defense by providing legal and media advice. The campaign on Hansen's behalf resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy.
Fascinating, wouldn't you agree?
Here, in Soros Foundations' annual report, is a direct connection to Hansen, along with an admission that "The campaign on Hansen's behalf resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy."
As is typical, a global warming obsessed media don't find this newsworthy. Think they'd be so disinterested if this smoking gun involved an oil company giving money to a Republican official?
While you ponder, forward to page 143 (emphasis added):
note: The Strategic Opportunities Fund includes grants related to Hurricane Katrina ($1,652,841); media policy ($1,060,000); and politicization of science ($720,000).
Add it all up, and everything the IBD editorial claimed - that a high-ranking official at NASA may have received money from an organization funded by George Soros in order to politicize science -- is actually available in this annual report.
Yet, not one media outlet thought this was newsworthy.
How disgraceful.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
At least it's consistent
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 17:16 ET by 10ksnookerKnowing the USHCN temperatures had been faked, and now corrected, which destroys the globull warming punchline, it stands to reason that eventually the propagandist would be found out. The parrot media is so busy trying to stay on top of the lies they have no time for journalism.
May I ask, how much time
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 17:30 ET by danboMay I ask, how much time was he paid andd performing duties for Sorros, while he was also on the clock for NASA?
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Fire Hansen
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 17:37 ET by Lame CherryJames Hansen must be terminated from NASA.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
GW preachers bought and paid for
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 17:46 ET by nkviking75Global warming "deniers" are constantly accused of being financed by oil companies. Nice to see the GW evangelists live by the standards they espouse. </sarcasm off>
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
I`m not sure if this will
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 18:38 ET by chessplayerI`m not sure if this will fly. Did they give the money directly to Hansen (like the Heinz foundation did), or just hire legal aid for him? And Hansen was a promoter of AGW long before 2006.
MSM rule book
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 18:51 ET by nkviking75If MSM rules applied here, Hansen would be tainted merely by having a connection with Soros. That's how the game is played. And their rule book doesn't always require conclusive proof.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Shall it fly? Possibly...
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 19:23 ET by UnsaneI think it will, we just need to remind the cultists and AGW religionists of this little bit of information. Why? Well, how many times do you hear them crying about how the only reason AGW is "denied" (not questioned, not put under consideration, "denied") is because of EVIL oil companies (who, they aren't intellectually honest enough to admit, are the very people they wish to steal from)? YET, we are NOT allowed to question the motives, financial or otherwise, of the Hansens of the world.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Why wouldnt' the MSM report
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 19:46 ET by gueinWhy wouldnt' the MSM report on this? Could it be that snooping into a Soros foundation would reveal many of their own colleagues names in there?
Possibly
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 19:48 ET by kdoliverI am sure there are some of their buddies names there. But more importantly, they believe Global Warming to a human creation and since Soros believes as they do--don't mess it.
http://thelazytriathlete.blogspot.com/
Fox News Radio
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 20:42 ET by TruthMattersQuestion: What's with global warming ads on Fox News Radio? Is this another Soros funded thing?
Easy enough to verify that
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 21:10 ET by ding7777the Investor's Business Daily Monday claim of billionaire leftist George Soros's foundations giving $720,000 in 2006 to the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen is a crock.
Grantee list for 2006:
$100,00 - Government Accountability Project
Ideas, please
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 21:39 ET by UnsaneWhy, if ding7777 says it, IT MUST BE TRUE!!!
ding, do you have ANY ideas of your own, or do you merely sit around and bitch and moan about other people?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Ding7777 Thanks for your
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 23:58 ET by maggieqpublicDing7777
Thanks for your assessment. Am anxiously awaiting additional detail regarding Soros’ possible cash outlays in the arenas of U.S. foreign policy, economic policy and politics.
As I’m sure you agree, clearly we need a thorough examination of the Soros’ books so that we can assess the validity of any allegations.
maggieqpublic, or I could just
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 05:16 ET by ding7777comment on this post where NewsBusters is pushing the false claim of Hansen receiving $720,000 from Soros (you could even follow the link which was provided to verify the falseness.)
George Soros is a very
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 10:08 ET by maggieqpublicGeorge Soros is a very generous man. A full accounting of his largesse would give us the facts to assess the man’s influence on foreign policy, politics and economic markets. Investor’s Business Daily should stay on the story and continue their appeals for transparency.
maggieqpublic,
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 11:53 ET by ding7777Neither Investor’s Business Daily (nor NewsBusters) should post factualy false information
Business papers vs. whining
Sun, 10/07/2007 - 04:29 ET by UnsaneI trust a business paper much more than your whining. Business journalists walk an even finer line than other journalists.
Besides, ding7777, do you EVER have ANY ideas of your own?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
ding, it wastent soros
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 12:01 ET by bassndudeding, it wastent soros directly. You know that. Your post above is factually false. It was a soros funded group that gave the money to hansen. Nobody said "soros gave hansen money".
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Your link is for the
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 06:18 ET by danboYour link is for the "2007" report for the "Open Society Institute" which they claim is "part" of the "Soro's Foundation Network". Not all of it. Now the link provided by Noel is for the "2006", "Soros Foundation Network Report".
On page 125 of that report it specifically mentions Hansen "providing legal and media advice."
Now your Open Society Institute did grant $400,000 to the bastion of Science, under it's politicization of science program. "The Union of Concerned Scientist."
This money was "designed to train and encourage scientists to speak up". Unfortunately they also attempt to silence anyone who disagrees with them.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
danbo,
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 06:47 ET by ding7777the link I provided displays both the 2006 and 2007 lists of Grantees from the Politicization of Science fund. (If seeing a total of 5 Grantees from both 2006 and 2007 confuses you, you can use the drop down box and specify a specific year).
Using Noel's link, on page 125, (and contrary to your incorrect assertion of The Union of Concerned Scientist), Hansen received "legal and media advice" from The Government Accountibility Project
As I stated above, in 2006, The Government Accountibility Project received $100,000 to support the Science and Engineering Whistleblower Campaign.
Hansen received "legal and media advice" not $720,000 that this post is pushing.
You side step the major
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 07:14 ET by danboYou side step the major issue. You point to one portion of the program, pretending it's everything. It's a portion. Nor does it specify how that portion is spent. That's missinformation.
The free publicity, and legal assistance comes at a price. It cost money. You sound like ministers who drive around in expensive cars with diamond pinky rings and say they're paupers. The church owns everything.
As a former civil servant. If I had circumvented chain of command I would have been fired.
If you would perfer to follow a man who helped the Nazi confiscate the property of Jews. That's your concern.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
No, danbo,
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 11:50 ET by ding7777The whole program which provided "legal and media advice " to Hansen (as both Noel posted and page 125 of the pdf show) is called The Government Accountability Project - which received $100,000 in 2006.
The point you are willing dismiss is that NewsBusters Jake Gontesky falsely claims Hansen "got some big paychecks from Soros" when even Noel admits he only received "legal and media advice". Noel keeps pushing the $720,000 figure which is verifiably false.
I'll let them deal with pay
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 12:11 ET by danboI'll let them deal with pay checks. But you pay my bills you pay me. Soros is politicizing science.
Using only one group when the author stated that was probably where only "part" of it "may" have come from. And from the wrong year (There are no assertions that that was all of 06.)You're being less honest than what you're accusing others of.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
danbo
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 13:03 ET by ding7777The following can be found at the link previously posted.
The Strategic Opportunities Fund is the overall United States Fund. It in turn addresses 5 area, one of which is the Politicization of Science.
In 2006, The Politicization of Science area directly granted money to 3 projects, one of which was the The Government Accountability Project. It is The Government Accountability Project and only The Government Accountability Project that provided "legal and media advice" to Hansen.
Noel, cut and pasted this paragraph from page 125 of the 2006 Soros Foundations Network Report :
The Government Accountability Project received only $100,000 in 2006 and Hansen received x amount of that $100,000 in the form of "legal and media advice".
Hansen did not receive a paycheck nor did he receive $720,000.
To coin a phrase, how disgraceful to claim that he did!
By their own admission
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 13:42 ET by danboBy their own admission "The Open Society Institute and the Soros foundations network spent $417,585,000 in 2006". And that's just 2006. You remind me of a man who pull out his left pocket and complains he has no money. But doesn't let you see his right pocket , or his backpockets, or his wallet, or hi checkbook.
You pay my bills you pay me.
Soros financed that sham of censorship. Yet Hansen tries to quiet anyone who disagrees.
Maybe Hansen should go work for Soros rather than take the money of us taxpayers.
BTW Last time I looked foundations was a plural.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
good work ding
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 10:07 ET by uncle_buckWhen you looked at what Noel cited, it seemed to be a very loose association. One mention of Hansen on page 123 and then a single line item on page 143 seemed to be quite a leap from point A to point B. I also noticed that Noel was very careful in his word choice "and everything the IBD editorial claimed - that a high-ranking official at NASA may have received money from an organization funded by George
Soros".
uncle_buck
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 11:57 ET by ding7777Yep. Bait and switch or plausible deniablity after posting the false information
IDEAS
Sun, 10/07/2007 - 04:33 ET by UnsaneYep. Anything to endlessly whine and not be intellectually honest enough to post IDEAS of your own.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
I used to work for a Fortune
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 02:27 ET by CooltomI used to work for a Fortune 100 company. If I had expoused any causes and used my corporate position to validate my expertise I would have been terminated in one work day.
This is the quote from Jake
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 12:43 ET by dahliatraversThis is the quote from Jake Gontesky's piece:
George Soros' (the favorite fundraiser of many democrats) has reportedly given as much as $720,000 to Hansen to help package his alarmist claims and get them pushed by the mainstream media (The Soros Threat to Democracy):
It sounds like the $720,000 went to legal and advertising expenses to promote Mr. Hansen's unproven and disproven AGW claims, not into his pocket. If it can be proven that any of these funds went directly to Mr. Hansen, he should at a minimum lose his job at NASA.
In any event, this certainly blows the myth of a beleaguered, solitary, unfunded figure bravely trying to "get the truth out" using only his own voice.
dahliatravers
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 13:32 ET by ding7777Summarizing all my previous posts, Hansen did not receive anywhere near the $720,000 figure cited (via paycheck or in the form of legal/media advice).
That you think it "sounds like the $720,000 went to legal and advertising expenses to promote Mr. Hansen's [...]" proves how disgraceful this post entry is.
You guys whine about any
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 13:44 ET by danboYou guys whine about any money coming from an oil company. The truth of your own BS is catching up.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
-
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 20:47 ET by dahliatraversDing, that's fine. But if the correct number has six figures, you're talking real money. And Soros' money that is no "cleaner" than oil money on this issue, especially as it is being used to amplify the voice of a "scientist" who has been proven wrong on too many crucial aspects of the theory of AGW.
Your own research does not support IBD's claim
Fri, 09/28/2007 - 00:22 ET by BlindSightYou say that IBD "claimed one of billionaire leftist George Soros's foundations gave $720,000 in 2006 to ... James Hansen"; the IBD editorial also claims that:
- "Soros' Open Society Institute ... gave him "legal and media advice"
- "Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program"
- "That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly "censored" spiel."
What of these claims is supported by your own legwork?
You have shown only that a Soros organization made total grants last year of $720,000 relating to "politicization of science" and that The Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower protection organization that is an OSI grantee, provided "legal and media advice" to Hansen.
You also seem to have shown that Soros' Open Society Institute in fact did not provide any direct assistance to Hansen at all, and you have offered nothing that shows either (i) that any organization provided anyany money to Hansen, (ii) that the "legal and media advice" that The Government Accountability Project - which is a respected, long-standing organization with bi-partisan support dedicated to government transparency and accountability (and along with 30 other conservative, libertarian and liberal groups is a member of The Liberty Coalition, a transpartisan public policy group dedicated to preserving the Bill of Rights, personal autonomy and individual privacy) - provided to Hansen was worth anything like $720,000, or (iii) that GAP is somehow a tool of Soros. Can you tell us more about who funds them?
So your conclusion that "everything the IBD editorial claimed - that a high-ranking official at NASA may have received money from an organization funded by George Soros in order to politicize science -- is actually available in this annual report" seems to be almost wholly unsupported. Maybe there IS a story here, but NB has yet to uncover it. But perhaps I'm confused about your purpose - are you guys journalists, or advocates? Even if avowedly the latter, surely you want to make sure you a defensible story to tell.
By the way, you might be curious to note that Hansen has made the following information available about this claim, which provides more details on the limited assistance he received from GAP:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_Lawlessness_070927.pdf
Although some of the GAP's agenda seems liberal (as it's presently fighting a Republican administration), it's assistance to Hansen seems rather straightforward and in any case wasn't something underhanded but quite open - as it involved directly challenging NASA'a administration.
Perhaps a more relevant question would be to wonder why NASA folded like a bunch of weenies even though Hansen's statements have undoubtedly been out of line with Administration policy - could it be that the law is on Hansen's side? And if so, why didn't the Administration, while Republicans still control the Congress, act to change the law so that Hansen could be silenced? One can only wonder, but perhaps there have been troublesome little issues under the Constitution - that pesky liberal document - that stated their hand.
And then of course there is the flip side - might not questions of "rogue speech" and whistleblowers be issues that Republicans favor, if Dems run the administration in a couple of years? And do whistleblowers provide value in protecting taxpayers? Isn't this the reason that, indeed, both parties (and the Defense Department and other agencies) are now working to strengthen whistleblower protections?
http://thehill.com/business--lobby/in-departure-from-rumsfeld-era-pentag...
http://www.whistleblower.org/content/press_detail.cfm?press_id=1161
Fascinating issues are indeed involved here, and not merely partisan ones, but central ones relating to how we as citizens can best keep our government in control.
20/20 BlindSight
"I do not know what is true. ... But in the midst of doubt ... I do not doubt that the faith is true and adorable which leads a soldier to throw away his life in obedience to a blindly accepted duty."
- Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr.