I’m sure he’ll have his credentials questioned, but NASA Administrator Michael Griffin told NPR that he was not sure global warming is a problem. He also said that NASA was not “an agency chartered to quote ‘battle climate change.'”
The highlight quotes from Griffin:
I have no doubt that global — that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change.
First of all, I don’t think it’s within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown, and second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings – where and when – are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.
…
Nowhere in NASA’s authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another. We study global climate change, that is in our authorization, we think we do it rather well. I’m proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to quote “battle climate change.”
NPR has the audio.
Now that is sweet, and he puts into words exactly what I am thinking – who said the change is bad? We ought to have that discussion.
This is nothing to crow about. Anyone that has any understanding about how NASA is administered knows that the senior management going all the way up to the Agency Administrator is a political appointee and does not hail from the halls of the scientific corps of NASA.
So, while you cheer you should also sneer and look closely at his credentials. Griffin is a direct political appointee of the Bush Administration. This is the same administration that deliberately chose to ignore portions of the Clean Air Act.
Come up with a bonafied heretic and then crow.
-s
btw…PBS just did an in depth bio on Griffin…and that backs up my statement. Do a google.
And for the more inquisitive, read Griffin’s bio on wikipedia.
You will note that none of his scientific experience or education is related to any field associated to climate science. In fact, what little experience he has is directly tied to missile defense and program management. He is not published in anyway with any sort of research or program tied to GW or Climatology.
I am all for entertaining dissent and dispute in this area of Global Warmning, but pick someone else that actually has some expertise and is not some hack with a political appointment.
-s
You are right, he is not really a defector, but perhaps you missed Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming
And perhaps Seeker you missed “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is itself a Fraud and a Swindle
You are deceiving people by promoting misinformation like this “documentary,” Seeker. Your other post about Global Warming is similar spin. I find it hard to believe, that you believe, your own propaganda.
Your other post about Global Warming is similar spin. I find it hard to believe, that you believe, your own propaganda.
I am not sure either. I believe that it is the “Fast Food Happy Meal” approach to finding information that supports Seeker’s predefined notion of what is wrong with GW. This approach is widespread in many of Seeker’s posts and positions.
It isn’t that his notion is bad (although I disagree with it), but it is his failing to really dig deep and look at the deeper truths behinds these claims to validate these claims. Instead, he relies on the MSM and Conservative Blogs to summarize.
Case in point, I saw this post and immediately took it with an extreme grain of salt…dug deeper…and found the inherent flaw with this claim. I will not settle for the McDonald’s Happy Meal.
People are busy, but to overly rely on “Fast Food” answers is a mistake when it comes to very complicated issues. Doing so is a dis-service to others and yourself when you are trying to discuss issues that are far more complex.
(off soap box)
– s
Thanks to Silver for setting the record straight.
I enjoyed this part on Giffin’s profile immensely.
“James Hansen, a NASA climate scientist, said Griffin’s comments showed “arrogance and ignorance”, as millions will likely be harmed by global warming.[18] Jerry Mahlman, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said that Griffin was either “totally clueless” or “a deep antiglobal warming ideologue.”
Ouch!
Silver, thanks for reinforcing my initial point about challenging credentials and before doing your “Fast Food” analysis to seeker’s posts, you may should read who actually wrote the post. I put this post in and I checked out Griffin’s credentials before I posted it. While his degree is not in climatology (anybody, raise your hand if yours is), he is clearly well educated and qualified for the job.
He was answering the questioned posed to him. He is a bit skeptical of global warming and he doesn’t think NASA’s job is to stop global warming. Why is that such a bad thing? That’s not just a surface reading of the information. I think he would be in a better position to understand the situation than any of us.
I don’t think we should simply take anyone’s word for it, but it always strikes me as odd that we must be skeptical about the credentials of anyone who strays from the “consensus” but never question those who represent the majority. It’s like some type of bizarro world where real skepticism and questioning only occurs when it is in response to challenges to the orthodoxy. Skepticism can never be applied to the dogma, only those who dare disagree.
Silver, since you say it is not just about something you disagree with, but about simply going for the information that reinforces preconceived ideas, I’m waiting for you to challenge Cineaste’s constant posting of global warming supporters (never of anyone who might not totally buy the hype) and Cedric’s quoting of global warming supporters. Since both are simply posting information that agrees with their ideas already. Or does that not fit in with your McTheory?
Aaron,
Silver, thanks for reinforcing my initial point about challenging credentials and before doing your “Fast Food” analysis to seeker’s posts, you may should read who actually wrote the post. I put this post in and I checked out Griffin’s credentials before I posted it. While his degree is not in climatology (anybody, raise your hand if yours is), he is clearly well educated and qualified for the job.
Calm down. I did not intentionally infer that Seeker wrote this post. Geeze…chill out.
However, my point is valid. Griffin is not qualified at all to make any sort of pronouncement…neither by education, published papers, or in his job or previous jobs proves that he has any expertise when it comes to global science or climate science period.
If you don’t like that, then great. I can’t stop your feathers from being ruffled any more than the fact that as a political appointee Griffin has an obligation to uphold administration policy over science. Period.
This will further upset you even more, but there is hard evidence that Griffin altered NASA’s charter to remove Global Climate Change as part of the agencies mission. A mission I might add has been part of NASA’s charter since the creation of NASA. Here is the link.
As to your question about being open to debate and taking things at face value.
If you point me to a true heretic with Global Warming expertise (e.g., published, works in the field, etc) I am open to looking at them regardless of the appointee status. Griffin has none of that.
I will also be willing to take things at face value the minute you concede that your skepticism on GW and other policy issues could be wrong and you can take other claims that differ from what you believe (Based on scientific evidence) at face value.
So far, I have seen none of that.
I am an ardent believer based upon your reaction here that you are angry because someone chose not to take it at face value and dug a little deeper. Thus, catching you in a lie.
Sorry. I don’t care if I upset you on those grounds.
-s
If you point me to a true heretic with Global Warming expertise (e.g., published, works in the field, etc) I am open to looking at them regardless of the appointee status. Griffin has none of that.
of course, I did that in Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming, not to mention Nigel Calder, the well-respected science journalist. But be careful. If they offer data, you should evaluate the data, not just their creds.
Seeker,
of course, I did that in Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming, not to mention Nigel Calder, the well-respected science journalist. But be careful. If they offer data, you should evaluate the data, not just their creds.
Granted. That is a given when looking at anyone in this debate…credentials, published papers, and the raw data. Which, being the OCD and detailed person that I am (borderline obsessive), I do on an ongoing basis.
Actually, I am looking at both the source materials for the links you posted in greater detail. While I am in the camp that believes we are on the verge of the tipping point with GW and also knows that that economic consequence of doing something is less than doing nothing, I am open to looking at the oposing view. That is almost always the case. Not always, but mostly…
-s
Silver, you didn’t upset me. I just thought it “odd” that you carried on about our fast food and sound bite nation that doesn’t pay attention to detail when you didn’t know who wrote the post to which you were responding.
You didn’t catch me in a lie of which I am aware. I would like for you to explain how I lied in my post, please, seeing how the vast majority is simply quotes from Griffin. Since you saw fit to use the word “lie,” I would appreciate it if you referenced the specific instance where I lied.
I don’t expect you to take my claims at face value. I fully understand why you “dig deeper.” I do the same with information from you, Cineaste and anyone else.
I have long admitted my skepticism about man-made global warming hype. I’m not exactly skeptical on global warming. I have no issues acknowledging the globe may indeed be warming. I am skeptical that man in the primary reason for that and also that the increases we are experiencing will lead to tragic results.
As to Griffin personally, just as you mention his political appointment, I must mention the political affiliation of the site to which you linked – Think Progress. It is clearly a left (if not far left) leaning site. Even in the information cited there, it does not really say anything except what proponents of global warming want to hear.
The link states that between 2002-2006, NASA was chartered to, among other things, “protect our home planet.” Now even from the outset it should be clear that statement can mean (or not mean) any one of several things. That is not automatically a mandate for stopping global warming.
The next thing which we find by “digging deeper” is by looking at the years. When did the language of protecting earth begin? It appears it stretched from the years 2002-2006 according to the left leaning site. Who was President in 2002?
Sean O’Keefe had just been appointed the previous year (2001) by President Bush when the language was added (?) to NASA’s mission. Did O’Keefe somehow not have the same obligation as Griffin?
Again, I have no problem with you digging deep on my posts and bringing up counterpoints. That’s how the blogging world works, but I don’t appreciate someone insinuating (or stating) that I lied while extolling the virtues of researching beyond their own biases when it appears that individual did not do so.
As a Christian I am often reminded here by others of Jesus’ words concerning a log and a speck, perhaps they apply here, or perhaps it is two logs – either way I would appreciate an explanation of where I lied.
I also wanted to add that Griffin has apologized to NASA for wading into the fight because as he says it has become more political than technical.
Also, if Griffin with his PhD’s in science (but not climatology) are not qualified to have a stated opinion on global warming, what about Al Gore or any of us? Should we simply stop talking about this because we are not climatologists?
Aaron,
Also, if Griffin with his PhD’s in science (but not climatology) are not qualified to have a stated opinion on global warming, what about Al Gore or any of us? Should we simply stop talking about this because we are not climatologists?
No, we should continue to talk about things like this regardless of background…even if it is Al Gore. However, I highly doubt you have read his book or seen his documentary on the subject despite your skepticism…while I did watch and dig deeper on the BBC one pointing flaws at GW (maybe I am mistaken in this assumption).
However, we should not be engaging in the discussion in such a way that connotes our view (without being experts in the field) as absolute gospel. Some of us are less familiar with the science than others. A few of us have a pretty good understanding of the science and looks at the raw data (I do count myself in that latter group).
If one is going to be engaged in the conversation, one must be willing to look at both ends of the discussion…from Al Gore to the BBC and everything in between while digging deeper and dispensing with the rhetoric. I try and do that as much as possible despite the throwing around of terms by others as “fear monger, scare tactics, or Liberal left wing loony.” That does little to help the GW discussion from a rational reasoning perspective.
That being said, it is ultimately those that are experts in the field that should be listened to. Last time I looked they are the ones that have dedicated their time, effort, etc, to get a degree, work in the field, and devote their lives to understanding how the climate and ultimately our use of our resources impacts the planet.
You and I can agree to disagree on the remaining points you raised. We will go around and around on them and get nowhere in terms of bridging the divide.
This is an issue that will not be won in the Court of Public opinion, but one within pure science without the use of the media by government to sell one position or another on it.
-s
This is an issue that will not be won in the Court of Public opinion, but one within pure science without the use of the media by government to sell one position or another on it.
Agreed. I am currently reading through the latest New Scientist, which I and Cineaste both linked to previously. I want to understand the leftist
propagandatake on the science more fully. I already see some serious holes in their assumptions, but will analyze it further.Needless to say, it is not as overwhelmingly convincing as global warmists make out – not if you are looking at it critically rather than looking to support your thesis.
I’m not really concerned at who is or is not classified as an expert. I think information from sources should be weighted given a variety of factors (credentials included). But if information is right, it is right regardless who says it – Al Gore or me.
I fully expect that I could be wrong about man made global warming. My skepticism may not be warranted. If I am wrong then I am wrong. It won’t be the first time. If you have read any of my comments here, you should have noticed that I am the first to admit that I can be wrong and one of the things I am most sure about is that I am wrong about some things.
But getting back to your post, I notice that you kindly side stepped all the issues I raised with your earlier post – saying I lied and the issue of the language of NASA’s mandate – and instead opted for your usual “above-it-all” response. I apologize if I misread you, perhaps I did. But if not, this is why I would rather debate/argue with Cineaste and others. I would take hot passion over cold condescension any day. (Again, I honestly do apologize because you may not be like this at all, but that is how you come across to me in comments on the internet.)
I honestly would like an answer to my points I raised. I apologize for the snideness that may have come across in them. If I sense it in others I tend to go for the one-up – and that’s wrong on m part. I would like you to point out where I lied and how you explain the insertion of the protection language to NASA during Bush’s first term.
Aaron,
saying I lied and the issue of the language of NASA’s mandate – and instead opted for your usual “above-it-all” response. I apologize if I misread you, perhaps I did.
We all sometimes get caught up in the passion of conveying our ideas and at times do not convey them adequately.
Perhaps this is a combined situation of my not conveying my thought on this point as clearly as I could and/or your misreading it. I don’t think anyone with any sort of objectivity can say for sure.
What I can do is attempt to adequately convey what I was trying to communicate here and then try to take up your other points on merit in the morning. I hope that this can meet with your approval.
With regard to the “lie” what I was trying to communicate was not that you directly lied, but the information you presented per the interview was inaccurate and filled with large degrees of misrepresentation. That misrepresentation was on the part of Michael Griffin and not yourself. In effect, when digging deeper and finding that a) NASA’s charter was altered by said administrator after 50 years, and b) his lack of expertise in this area, he was in effect lying about NASA having no role in GW.
If anything, the only fault (if you can even call it fault) on your part is that you passed this information on and labeled it a a NASA official being a GW heretic. Maybe this is a catchy headline (I know you are a journalist by education), but it is a major representation of the facts.
That your reaction was what it was with the level of snideness left me no other path to conclude that despite the merits of my points, you were defending such deception, thus caught in the moment. This is the problem with this communication medium. The written word is very powerful, yet in the online space with instant publication ability, things can and do get cloudy.
The purpose of pointing out the fallacy of Griffin’s claim about NASA (e.g., secretly changing NASA’s charter) was to highlight the fact that saying what one believes and altering an Agency’s charter with no public hearing are not one in the same. Nor does it lend itself to adding to that person’s credibility.
While you may disagree on the merits or the source of this data, if I had taken enough time in the heat of the moment to post the multiple other links I had found and analyzed and then provided a reference to the original NASA charter, it may not have been so objectionable due to the “Liberal” source that is taken from.
That is the extent of the conversation that I am mentally and physically able to convey this evening. It has been a long day here on the west coast.
If the above at least speaks to a portion of your concern, and we can agree to keep an open mind moving forward, I would be more than happy to engage you and discuss the other points you raised one by one.
Best wishes,
S.
Seeker,
Needless to say, it is not as overwhelmingly convincing as global warmists make out – not if you are looking at it critically rather than looking to support your thesis.
I find many of the same flaws in the claims by the Scientists that I would consider fringe in the ant-GW debate as well. Nevertheless, I continue to look and review with an open mind.
Perhaps I am more and more convinced the more I read, the deeper I look at scientific studies and economic impact analysis studies (not mass media), and begin to draw my own conclusions from them…as objectively as anyone really can.
I can similarly see a parallel with those on the other side as well.
-s
This about sums it up…
This Modern World
Cineaste,
This is my last comment before bugging out. I think that cartoon accurately captures the state of rationale thinking in the United States.
The people of the United States has lost their ability to engage in reasoned debate detached from religious and political rhetoric. The ability to do this is a cornerstone in the Founder’s belief that this country could survive as a Representative Republic.
Sadly, that cornerstone has cracked, been chipped, and is now being eaten away. The discussions by people on both sides that read this blog directly illustrate my point. Neither the believers/die hard conservatives or the far left non-believers are able to engage in rational discussion checking religion and rhetoric at the door.
It really is interesting in that it took only a few pages of picking up a book that covers this discussion that I saw the exact same parallels it describes on this blog.
Silver, signing off.