link NASA chief doubts global warming is front-burner issue Remarks called irresponsible by environmentalists By MARK CARREAU Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle TOOLS Email Get section feed Print Subscribe NOW Comments Recommend RESOURCES Complete space coverage NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, whose agency's observations of the Earth have helped to confirm a global rise in temperature, said he doubts that global warming is an issue mankind should address. "I have no doubt that global — that a trend of global warming exists," Griffin told National Public Radio's Morning Edition in an interview set for broadcast today. "I'm not sure it's fair to say that is a problem we must wrestle with." NPR made a transcript of Griffin's remarks available Wednesday. "To assume that is a problem is to assume that the state of the 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 it doesn't change," he said. "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. "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 might 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." Environmental groups criticized Griffin's remarks as irresponsible. Griffin's remarks suggest NASA is prepared to ignore the findings gathered by its own satellites and scientists, said Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, a nonpartisan watchdog group. "The science performed by NASA as well as scientists around the world shows that global warming is no longer an environmental issue. It's a rapidly advancing human disaster," Clapp said. "Millions of people across the world will face hunger, flooding from a rise in sea levels and water scarcity. To try to hide that by saying we don't know what the climate should be is ignoring the science of his own agency." Space agency's role However, David Mould, NASA's chief spokesman, said Griffin was attempting in his remarks to characterize the space agency's role in assessing environmental issues. "NASA is providing the vast majority of the data on global climate. We analyze some of the data," Mould said. "But the policies beyond the analysis of the data, he was trying to say, are outside the scope of NASA's mission. Others, including Congress, will decide that." Indeed, Griffin said in the interview that NASA is chartered by Congress to study global warming and not to combat it. But Griffin's assessment merely reflects a Bush administration reluctance to address a major environmental problem, according to David Willett, chief spokesman for the Sierra Club, the nation's oldest environmental advocacy group. "What makes it doubly concerning is that NASA is on the front line, really able to sound the warning bell of what's happening to our planet because they get the planet-wide view," Wiliett said. "They have given the scientific consensus already. They should feel an obligation to be looking at the issue of global warming as a problem that needs to be addressed, not as a phenomenon that simply needs to be studied." Last year, James Hansen, the space agency's chief climatologist, charged that a young political appointee in the agency's public affairs branch had tried to stop him from speaking out on his long-standing concerns over global warming. When Congress took issue, Griffin responded with a policy that affirmed the agency's commitment to open scientific and technical inquiry and public disclosure
I was in a meeting with Dr. Griffin last week. He is a very smart guy, with a real fiery engineering demeanor. That being said, the above quotes really shock me. I cannot ascertain if this is mere political stoogery, or a personal opinion - but his lack of foresight and understanding is a serious downer. Given that many of the top climate researchers in the world work at NASA and have repeatedly been squashed in their attempts to alert the world of this serious environmental concern, my respect for him is seriously diminished.
This is just r****ded. Global development over centuries has occurred with the current climate. Climate change that disrupts trade and economies, not to mention displacing huge #s of people around the world that live in coastal areas, will have a devastating impact. Can the head of NASA really be this dense?
i dont think its that dense. I think its actually a very abstact look at the way the world is and what we really can know.
Yeah, it's impossible for humanity to understand the consequences of crop devestation, higher sea levels, waning ocean currents, and ecological disruption on a scale just slightly less terrible than meteor impact. After all. Humans are just real dumb/ignorant. Well some are, obviously.
i dont think that was his point. i thought it was more that how do we really know whats 'right' for the world? and that isnt always whats right for humans.
In that case I agree. More than likely, from the "world's point of view" the best "thing" would coincide with human devestation. Of course, I assumed you were not a fan of deep ecology, donkey.
believe it or not, i like to have perspective as a whole. we are just animals enjoying our day in the sun and some day it will be over for us...only to be replaced by some other species more adept at living in the future climates.
You are totally misreading his statement then. He specifically refers to what is the "best climate for all other human beings." Not what is right for the world to the exclusion of humans.
i don't know what to think of all of this. but i agree with you that it seems silly that we, as laypeople, are arguing which brilliant scientists are right on this issue. i know some of you find me dense because i'm not all conclusive on this issue...that i don't know what to think about it. but this is exhibit "a" for why i think the issue isn't nearly as decided as some of you do. there are much better reasons to find me dense, by the way.
To be fair, we really are. The number of times we have tried to artificially protect the environment (particularly with nature reserves) and screwed up all sorts of other stuff is astounding. Good intentions, terrible results quite often. If all the stuff you mention happens overnight, yes, the ecological disruption would be disastrous. If it happens over 100 or 300 years, then people can adapt over time. The world 100 years ago was very different from today - just look at the amount of forest that has been razed. Problematic? Absolutely. Disastrous? Not so much. But 100 years ago, if they were talking about how 60% of the world's forests would be gone (I made up the number) in 100 years, they would probably be talking about it in similar "end of the world" terms. From a theoretical basis, just trying to reverse a trend isn't always a good solution. That may not be the case here, but it's an arguable point of view (not one I agree with, though).
I don't think it silly at all. Heck, as far as climate science is concerned Dr. Griffin is no smarter than you and I (at least in terms of 'official' qualifications). Now, aerospace science and statistics are another matter. Major: I understand the sentiment, but taking a "wait and see because we don't know" attitude is at the other end of the spectrum, and likewise frought with unknown consequences. We don't have to go back to living in caves - but acknowledging the problem, understanding the potential consequences, and acting in an appropriately conservative manner is justified. And certianly more suitable then arguing that ignoring the issue is more appropriate since we are not 100% certain of the outcome.
Griffin accepts the reality global warming caused by humans, so he's not dense because of that. He's dense because after accepting that reality he tries to downplay its significance with some philosophical bs about how it's arrogant to think that the current climate is the best for all humans. If you put aside thousands of years of development based on this climate, I suppose he has a theoretical point. But in actual reality it is a r****ded point that seems designed to minimize the significance of a climate trend that he accepts. And it seems like he's doing it because of political pressure from the Bush administration.
