NASA administrator brings on the crazy

Since Bush political appointees started running NASA, the agency’s record on science has become something of an embarrassment. But the humiliation somehow manages to get worse.

NASA administrator Michael Griffin is drawing the ire of his agency’s preeminent climate scientists after apparently downplaying the need to combat global warming.

In a pretaped interview to be broadcast this morning on National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition” program, Griffin is asked by NPR’s Steve Inskeep whether he is concerned about global warming.

“I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists,” Griffin told Inskeep. “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,” Griffin said. “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.”

Let me get this straight. The earth is warming due to human activity. We can take steps to protect the crisis from getting worse. Climate change has the capacity to undermine life on earth as we know it. And Bush’s man at NASA wants a national audience to believe it’s supposed to be this way? Is this some kind of joke?

James Hansen, NASA’s top climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told ABC News, “It’s an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement. It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change…. It’s unbelievable. I thought he had been misquoted. It’s so unbelievable.”

Alas, Griffin means it.

The more I read Griffin’s remarks, the more astounded I am. To hear him tell it, we shouldn’t just ignore global climate change, it would also be “arrogant” to confront the catastrophe.

In some ways, this is different from the usual far-right tack — though it’s equally dumb. Bush administration officials and their allies generally prefer to argue that all of the science is wrong and global warming is a “myth.” Griffin apparently prefers a different approach: the science might very well be right, but let’s not do anything about it.

Chris Mooney sets the record straight.

Our global society is set up for — adapted to — the current climate. But now we’re moving in the direction of raising the sea level considerably — even as much of the global population is coastal — and melting large amounts of ice, while also altering the occurrence of phenomena, such as droughts, that could have a dramatic impact on food and water supplies.

How can anyone think this is not a tremendous societal risk, even if there might be some people — in, say, Buffalo, New York — who may actually have more pleasant weather under global warming? […]

[Let’s also] not forget the big picture. Michael Griffin said something obtuse in one press interview. But the Bush administration has more or less acted, for seven years, as if it agrees with him.

The mind reels.

I heard the interview and could not believe my own ears. They are shameless.

And let me guess… it’s not arrogant to take out a foreign government you don’t like, killing lots of people in the process.

That’s not arrogant.

  • The way I read his comment, it was more along the lines of, “how are we to know that global warming will not be an IMPROVEMENT?”

    Accentuating the positive aside, let’s not even go there.

  • “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 …”

    Assume for a minute that IF the earth warmed by 4 degrees that the amount of food we could grow would triple and that fewer people would die from various diseases and from natural disasters.

    IF that were true then wouldn’t a certain amount of global warming be a good thing?

  • The part you get from the audio, that doesn’t come across in the written version, is his hesitation as he tries to form the answer, right before he lets that crazy shit come out of his mouth. It almost sounds like he knows he’s a bag of crap, that he’s carrying water for the biggest bunch of criminals ever.

    He’s gotta be getting a lot of calls from serious people right now, and I’ll bet he’s not answering many of them.

  • The only way Griffin’s quote makes sense is if you change the word “climate” to “Iraq.” Then it makes perfect sense. As proof:

    “To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Iraq today is the optimal Iraq, the best Iraq that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change. I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular Iraq that we have right here today, right now is the best Iraq for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.”

    Otherwise Griffin is just another close-minded bastard in a herd of very elite close-minded bastards with the power to help drive this nation, and world, off a cliff.

  • Bless James Hansen for speaking out right in the moment, instead of covering his ass or avoiding the issue until years from now.

    He’ll probably be fired soon for performace related program activities. Or something. We could use more James Hansen types in government.

  • And let me guess… it’s not arrogant to take out a foreign government you don’t like, killing lots of people in the process.

    That’s not arrogant.

    It is arrogant for any man to presume to make these decisions.

    These decisions belong to God.

    If you do it only because He told you to, it’s not arrogance.

    If you had accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as you personal saviour, you too would know that.

  • Griffin might have a point, in a “tough luck, Bangladesh” sense, if the climate was changing due to natural forces. Adapt & overcome, humanity!

    But where climate change is caused by humans, it is up to humans to negate that harm. We are slowly un-terraforming our planet. This is something that can be consciously controlled. It’s up to NASA to tell us how to do it.

  • neil wilson: regardless of whether your hypothesis is true or not, it is not our place to try and experiment with the earth. it is our responsibility to take care of our planet, and that includes not changing the climate just as much as it includes not turning the oceans into cesspools.

  • “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.”

    Indeed. Far more prudent–and humble–would be to continue our wasteful and polluting lifestyle in the hopes that the chaos it unleashes in the natural cycles of the only habitable planet known to humanity will somehow prove to be a manifestation of God’s unknowable will and eventually turn the whole world into a Christian family beach resort. We could turn Kansas into a wave pool!

  • And also do not let NPR and in particular that right-wing enabler Steve Inchcreep off the hook. He could not even bother to follow-up with any reasonable questions or contradictory information–just let it slide as he has done with right-wing interviewees since pre-Iraq War interviews. He has brought a number of Iraq War architects onto his show and allowed them to babble on uncontested in their attempts to repair their reputations with lies and additional misleading statements. The damage folks like Inchcreep do to NPR, public radio in general and this country is immense.

  • Steve Inskeep is a ‘right-wing enabler”?

    I guess if you aren’t to the left of Clinton/Obama/Edwards then you are part of the wing-nuts.

  • Sarabeth, you’re such a card. But I don’t know if anyone ever answered my question, Did Bush say god told him to invade Iraq?

    Don’t be surprised about a Bush appointee saying something like Griffin did. They have a special scouting bureau in the Bush White House that scours the country for people bent on destroying sensible government because conservatives don’t like government. That’s why they’re so lousy at governing. We must work hard to take the onerous burden of government off the poor abused and beleagured Republicans and give it to Democrats who know how to govern.

  • Inskeep did follow-up slightly, saying “I want to make sure I hear you right,” or words to that effect.

    Of course, the Griffin interview was given as balance for yesterday’s interview with Gregg Easterbrook, so it was doomed from the start. Though Griffin wasn’t asked to rebut Easterbrook’s correct observation that going to the Moon is not a step toward Mars. Griffin could only say that NASA needed direction and, hey, the Moon and Mars are directions.

  • “I guess if you aren’t to the left of Clinton/Obama/Edwards then you are part of the wing-nuts.” Comment by neil wilson

    Please, neil, enlighten me as to Mr. Inchkeep and what acts or statements he has performed/made which lead you to apparently claim he is part of the left?

    Mr. Inchkeep rolled over in every interview he had (Juan Williams as well) with any administration figure or war architect before, during and after the war, allowing each person to say whatever nonsense they wanted without any challenge whatsoever. This has continued in his ‘series’ where he has brought on Wolfowitz, Feith, And the Iraqi responsible fo the “greeted with flowers” position, allowing them to make additional and obvious error-filled statements in their attempts to rehab their tattered reputations. Ditto in his ‘interview’ of Tom Delay. And this Griffin ‘interview’ was another gem.

    But give him Jimmy Carter on some nonsense issue, for example, and Inchkeep all of a sudden becomes Torqemada.

  • Neil Wilson wrote: Steve Inskeep is a ‘right-wing enabler”? I guess if you aren’t to the left of Clinton/Obama/Edwards then you are part of the wing-nuts.

    Just how exactly did you extract that from Bubba’s comment? I believe what he is saying is that Steve Inchcreep didn’t bother to ask any tough questions in that interview or in the interviews leading up to the Iraq War. When reporters just swallow the crap that is spewed out of the Republican spin machine without challenging it they become “enablers”.

    Didn’t you get your butt kick hard enough last time you tried to stir up some controversy on this board?

  • “Inskeep did follow-up slightly, saying “I want to make sure I hear you right,” or words to that effect.”

    Grumpy, I hear you but that is not follow-up. All Inchkeep ended up doing was allow Griffin to make his crazy claims a second time, uncontested once again.

    And wasn’t Easterbrook (who has absolutely no credentials on the topic of global warming whatsoever–why is he being asked to discuss the topic???) a global warming denier for so long?

  • The sister–thanks. I figured the intelligent and rational here would understand. I forgot about folks like neil.

  • From what I hear from the NASA grapevine, Griffin is really walking a tightrope trying to squeeze some science out of the increasingly strained NASA budget. He may have put his foot in his mouth in the NPR interview, but I wouldn’t lump him in with the rest of the right-wing loonies.

    Just to provide a response from Griffin himself, this press release just came over the NASA email exploder:

    May 30, 2007

    David Mould
    Headquarters, Washington
    202-358-1898

    RELEASE: 07-125

    STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO INQUIRIES RELATED TO NPR PRESS RELEASE

    NASA Administrator Michael Griffin responded Wednesday to inquiries related to a National Public Radio press release. The radio network’s release contained excerpts from an interview that included comments on global climate change.

    “NASA is the world’s preeminent organization in the study of Earth and the conditions that contribute to climate change and global warming. The agency is responsible for collecting data that is used by the science community and policy makers as part of an ongoing discussion regarding our planet’s evolving systems. It is NASA’s responsibility to collect, analyze and release information. It is not NASA’s mission to make policy regarding possible climate change mitigation strategies. As I stated in the NPR interview, we are proud of our role and I believe we do it well.”

  • The problem is not that people are adapted to the climate, as it is. The problem is that all life is adapted to the climate as it is.

    Coastal inundation would be one of the problems, which would be easiest to cope with, for people.

    The ultimate risk, here, is that we pass a tipping point, beyond which natural events accelerate climate change beyond the forcings associated with human activity, and climate changes at a rate and to an extent that brings about a general ecological collapse.

    Climate change is now inevitable. Policy will aim to restrain climate change from that tipping point, reduce the rate at which it occurs, so that change remains within bounds. We will adapt to climate change; the trick is to keep climate from changing so much and so fast, that neither we nor life on the planet can adapt.

  • The Middle Age Warming Period when vineyards thrived in England and Greenland was suitable for farming on a large scale has been COMPLETELY ERASED in a Soviet-style historical redaction worthy of Joe Stalin. A hundred years of scientific study with historical records verifying this four-hundred years of abnormal [by today’s standards] warmth has been rendered nugatory by a bunch of quacks and frauds posing as “scientists.”

    To get a graph called “the hockey stick” that shows today’s warming trend as absolutely unique. What is unique is the hybris and chutzpah of “climatologists” posing as “scientists” who are pursuing an agenda of vying for funding and grants from NGOs and big governments.

    Al Gore’s assault on sanity is the vanguard of superficial twaddle that makes the AGW movement a laughfest. Taxing the air we breathe is a Democrat’s wettest dream!

  • Re: Steve Inskeep

    Did anyone here actually realize that Mr. Inskeep is a interviewer. He is supposed to leave his opinions out of interviews and let the interviewee do the talking?

    Did anyone here realize that when you have someone in the middle that they look liberal to the conservatives and conservative to the liberals?

    For example, where do you think I fall on the political spectrum? What percent of America is to the left of me and what percent is to the right of me?

    I would guess that I am more liberal than about 75% of the people in this country and more liberal than about 3% of the people who post comments on this site.

  • The Middle Age Warming Period when vineyards thrived in England and Greenland was suitable for farming on a large scale has been COMPLETELY ERASED in a Soviet-style historical redaction worthy of Joe Stalin. –daveinboca, @22

    Erm… If it (I assume you mean information about it, rather than the period itself) had been completely erased, where did you hear about it? And, werent the Middle Age years a period of *cooling*? Called “little ice age”?

  • Well, daveinboca, I ain’t a climatologist, but I sure would like to drive one of them hybris cars. Think they’ll have freeways in Greenland?

  • Griffin is right on the money. Even if CO2 will lead to a 1C or 2C warming, there is absolutely no rational argument or law to say that there is anything wrong with higher temperatures, or that people should even be forced to pay trillions of dollars to avoid such higher temperatures.

    While the global warming bigots are stunned, Griffin should continue to act – for example, he should fire the crank Hansen who tries to transform the most prestigious space research institution into a tool to support idiotic far left-wing plans to control the mankind.

    Any sign of weakness of Dr Griffin in the following weeks will be used against him. Good luck, Mr director!!!

  • Neil Wilson

    1. Yes, we are well aware that Mr. Inskeep is an interviewer and not just some random person talking on the radio. What does an interviewer’s opinion have to do with recognizing when someone is stating a lie as a fact and then calling them on it? It shouldn’t matter if the interviewer or the person being interviewed is a Democrat or a Republican. An interviewer’s job should be to get to the truth and the facts of the conversation. That’s really the bottom line. When they don’t do that, they aren’t doing their jobs.

    2. I don’t care where you fall on the political spectrum or how liberal you think you are – you can’t form a decent argument to save your life.

  • The sister:

    You are the one who is saying Steve Inskeep is a lousy interviewer because he doesn’t badger his guests.

    Can you name some conservative interviewers who are good interviewers?

    Can you name some liberal interviewers who are good interviewers?

    I figured out you don’t like Mr. Inskeep. Who do you like?

  • Neil Wilson: you are even dumber than I thought the usual far right troll was here. What you droolers fail to understand is that the temperature change doesn’t mean that everything stays the same only it’s warmer. It means everything changes,/i> – such as weather patterns. The result of this will be that the areas of the world where we have agriculture that feeds the majority – such as the American midwest – are going to become less productive. To use your Dear Leader’s method of mangling the language (which you seem to understand): “in other words, that means there will be less food.”

    But thanks anyway for your successful efforts to demonstrate my point that there are two different kinds of homo on the planet: homo sapiens (us) and homo sap (you).

  • Neil, neil, neil…you certainly can extrapolate a lot of incorrect assumptions from people’s statements – that takes a lot of imagination and brain power on your part I’m sure.

    I have never said that Steve Inskeep is a lousy interviewer because he doesn’t “badger” his guests. Let’s take a simple example that maybe you can wrap your head around.

    Griffin says, “The sky is not blue, it is red.” Inskeep says to him, “Really? If I look outside right now, it looks blue to me. Would you look out here too? Now, can you explain how your statement is correct?”

    A rebuttal of an obviously wrong statement is all we are asking for. That doesn’t equate to badgering in my mind.

    I am not keeping a list of liberal or conservative interviewers who are good – that is not the point. The point is anyone who doesn’t question their guests on false or misleading statements is a poor interviewer and is enabling his audience to believe whatever the guest spews out of his mouth.

    Try again…

  • The fallacy in pointing to the earth’s past variances in temperature is that these are natural and cyclic variables that came into play to alter the earh’s climate. The earth does not spin on a steady axis, but does experience wobble in its rotation, nor does the earth do perfect cirlces around the sun (sorry creationists.) These variable have helped prompt some of our past hot and cold cycles.

    The hue and cry of climatologists is that humans have introduced a variable into the equation that is causing changes despite the earth’s natural cycles. And the human variable, the build up of grennhouse gasses in the atmosphere that is causing a shift in global temperature and climate, is on an arc of steady increase with no signs of abating. Not only that, scientistists postulate we will be reaching a tipping point in as early as a decade (NASA researched facts no less) that suggest other large and sudden natural increases in atmospheric greenhouse gasses (releases of CO2 from the oceans, etc.) will result in an even greater concentration of atmospheric gasses causing a sudden spike in global temps.

    The question is not whether the earth will survive this. It will. The question is whether the ecosystem and environment we rely upon will suffer drastic and sudden change. Humans despise deviation from the routine. We like our steady jobs, we like our security, we like knowing our homes will be there when we come back and that the power and water will be there when we demand it. The issue with climate change is whether it will disrupt our food supply, disrupt our terrain as we are used to it (such as Florida becoming under water) and the changes that will have for our society, economy, social structure etc.

    Global warming deniers are just like Bush when all he could say about the Iraq conflict was “Stay the Course”: nothing got better and and the delay in taking action may well lead to catastrophic consequences to our future security.

  • #22
    Yes you are so right…no one but you has heard about this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

    Of course I was taught about this in school, along with the mini ice age that followed; when you could ice skate on the River Thames through London.

    Also, they have been growing wine grapes in southern England for a few years now. Making some good wines too.

  • Even if CO2 will lead to a 1C or 2C warming, there is absolutely no rational argument or law to say that there is anything wrong with higher temperatures, or that people should even be forced to pay trillions of dollars to avoid such higher temperatures.

    So instead we should pay trillions of dollars to live at higher temperatures and hope that things don’t get too much worse? Or do you not realize that an increase in temperature will change weather patterns, coastlines, growing seasons, growing areas, etc., such that we will have to spend lots of money to adjust? Also, considering that most movements to mitigate human factors in global climate change are aimed at conservation and alternative forms of energy, why do you have a problem with those movements? How would agreeing to the Kyoto protocols hurt you? What is it that frightens you so much beyond your fear of a left wing plot to control mankind?

  • I have trouble answering everyone’s posts who complain about me.

    To Tom: Thanks for the name calling. I agree with you that calling people names is the best way to advance a discussion.

    It appears to me that you misread my post. I said in post 3 “IF the earth warmed by 4 degrees that the amount of food we could grow would triple and that fewer people would die from various diseases and from natural disasters.”

    Now, as I understand logic, IF the amount of food we could grow would triple means that (as you wrote in post 29) “in other words, that means there will be less food.”

    Now forgive me for disagreeing but I would think that if we triple the food we could grow it means there would be more food, not less.

    Maybe I don’t understand the meaning of “IF”???

    Now to answer The sister

    bubba wrote in Post 12 “And also do not let NPR and in particular that right-wing enabler Steve Inchcreep off the hook.”

    I responded to that post.

    You responded in post 27 “you can’t form a decent argument to save your life.”

    Well I guess you have me here. It is difficult for me to form a decent argument since I am a “dumber than I (Tom Cleaver) thought the usual far right troll was here. And I am not even part of the human race “homo sapiens (us) and homo sap (you). ”

    In any event, I understand that you think that Steve Inskeep is not your idea of the ideal interviewer although you haven’t mentioned anyone that you think is a good interviewer.

    @@@@@@@@@
    I personally think that NPR interviewers generally do a pretty good job. I especially think that Tom Ashbrook does a good job.

  • “IF the earth warmed by 4 degrees that the amount of food we could grow would triple and that fewer people would die from various diseases and from natural disasters.”

    Not true. Just the reverse will most likely happen on all accounts. Remember, the increase in earth’s temperature is measured as an average over the entire year. The actual increase in daily temps will be greater, meaning that July days could easily extend well into the 100’s for prolonged periods, whithering crops and lowering crop yields. Temperature change will not alter a great many natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. For other atmospheric-borne disasters such as tornados, hail, flood, hurricanes and others, those are expected to become more extreme and volatile. Heat waves that prey on the old, sick and weak will be more common, extend for longer durations and cause more deaths.

    Disease is already increasing with tropical diseases being found outside their normal range, especially vector-borne diseases such as those carried by mosquitos, other flies and ticks. Other pests normally controlled by winter’s freezing will be able to flourish under the warmer conditions and multiply in greater numbers, affecting our food supply.

    At present, a great deal of some of America’s most important farm land, such as California’s Imperial Valley and Central Valley are nourished from water supplies from snowfall dependent systems. We are already seeing snow levels rise in the Sierra Nevadas, meaning less snow to feed the rivers for this farmland. The transition from a snow dependent system to a rain dependent system will be costly because the plumbing system of dams, canals and other water movement structures is designed around capturing snowmelt and not rainfall. Plus the way we administer our stored supplies (water in reservoirs) is based upon the water year that goes from October 1st to September 30th and revolves around winter snowfall. We will have a difficult time managing water supplies in the arid and semi-arid west not knowing when and how our water supplies will be replenished.

    We have no idea what will happen to the ocean cycles of warming and cooling waters that affect our weather systems and hence our water supplies. These cycles such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), Madden-Julian Oscillation, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation could be altered in ways we do not know and affecting the engines that drive precipitation to every nation on the planet. Long story short, don’t just think that only the variable of temperature is put into play by warming temps. A lot of complex systems will shift in ways we may not even imagine at this time.

  • I run a site on global warming (www.globalwarming-factorfiction.com). It is designed to try to give both sides of the issue, I think I do a fairly good job of it since WSJ.com has referenced me a couple of times.

    I think we need to look more closely at Mr. Griffin’s words. If GW is caused by nefarious human activity than we should do something about it. But if GW is caused by the natural changes of global climate, then we need to live with it and adapt. There is a high likelihood that the latter is true and many climate scientists think humans are not the root cause. In fact, in a recent study of scientists only 39% felt that carbon dioxide reductions were a priority (http://globalwarming-factorfiction.com/2007/06/02/they-call-this-a-consensus/).

    We simply do not know enough about our climate to take dramatic action on this issue.

  • Comments are closed.