NASA Administrator Not Sure Global Warming A Problem

[Newsjock]

Source: Space Daily

Michael Griffin NASA Administrator has told America's National Public Radio that while he has no doubt 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."

In an interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep that will air in Thursday's edition of NPR News' Morning Edition, Administrator Griffin explains: "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."

Read more: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_Administrator_Michael_Griffin_Not_Sure_Global_Warming_A_Problem_999.html

---

This comes on the heels of yesterday's most-recommended story on DU (thanks!):
NASA: Danger Point Closer Than Thought From Warming

[Erika]

1. What an elitist dumbass

Doesn't he realize crop growth and everything else is dependent on climate?

[gobblechops]

2. well

He is a Brush appointee none of his 7 degrees have anything to do with climate, one of his degrees was from a Catholic university and has a MBA which in many cases would not matter but the fact that brush likes him makes that part suspect.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. There are excellent Catholic universities.

I have no use for religion, or for this clown, but using the attribute of Catholic to impugn an academic institution is a bit of probably unintentional bigotry on your part. Villanova? Fordham? Loyala? Marquette? Notre Dame? Boston College? This are just a few of the many credible Catholic Universities.

[gobblechops]

14. your right

wasn't my intent to suggest Catholic universities were any less then other universities just implying the view that global warming is gods work and not man caused may result in his belief that its not a threat.I don't know the guy and may be reaching for stars here but there is a chance his faith is a factor in his view.



(not related and on a separate note)
would I be a bigot if I didn't want a liberty grad with a masters in creationism to run my science department?I would consider that person unqualified due to poor education.not because he/she is a Christan.

[melm00se]

35. The Catholic Church

specifically the US Conference of Catholic Bishops issued an interesting letter in 2001 on this topic:

http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/globalclimate.htm

and there are some interesting (and for some, eye opening) quotes:

Therefore, we especially want to focus on the needs of the poor, the weak, and the vulnerable in a debate often dominated by more powerful interests. Inaction and inadequate or misguided responses to climate change will likely place even greater burdens on already desperately poor peoples. Action to mitigate global climate change must be built upon a foundation of social and economic justice that does not put the poor at greater risk or place disproportionate and unfair burdens on developing nations.

Responses to global climate change should reflect our interdependence and common responsibility for the future of our planet. Individual nations must measure their own self-interest against the greater common good and contribute equitably to global solutions.

"We cannot interfere in one area of the ecosystem without paying due attention both to the consequences of such interference in other areas and to the well being of future generations." - Pope John Paul II

"there is an order in the universe which must be respected, and . . . the human person, endowed with the capability of choosing freely, has a grave responsibility to preserve this order for the well-being of future generations." - Pope John Paul II

[PSPS]

3. He's a bush appointee, a crony, "heckuvajob" guy

Appointed only by virtue of his being a "loyal bushie," not any expertise or even interest in the agency he heads or its mission. Just another crony not worth the air he breaths, milking the treasury for his own benefit.

Yet NPR gives him a platform to spew his masters' propaganda. He's probably next to get the cabal's "medal of freedom."

[Buzz Clik]

47. He's the head of NASA. He has a platform already.

Would you prefer to remain completely ignorant of what this asswipe believes?

[Up2Late]

4. It was just on NPR...

...I really despise Michael Griffin, he quoted the basic RW Talking Points: Temperatures have risen an average of 1 degree C, but with a error rate of +/-20%!:mad:

The interview will be at the bottom link, but until then, you should here Yesterday's interview with the Gregg Easterbrook of "Wired" Magazine. The interviewer, Steve Inskeep is annoying as hell (as usual), but Easterbrook makes some great points.

<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10538661>

<http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=3>

[Buzz Clik]

48. I don't see Innskeep as annoyed -- simply playing the devil's advocate

Easterbrook makes some pretty dismissive -- and insulting -- comments about NASA's moonbase proposition (a goofy notion in many ways) and about NASA's priorities in general.

As you listen to the interview, you'll note that Innskeep has no trouble keeping up with Easterbrook, prompts him seamlessly, and even helps him clarify his points.

No, this is a typical scripted interplay between interviewer and interviewee in which Easterbrook has many points to make and Innskeep helps him make them.

[Up2Late]

49. I didn't say "annoyed," I said annoying, because, as you said...

"...this is a typical scripted interplay between interviewer and interviewee...," which is how almost all his interviews sound to me. That's what I find annoying.

The guy is a terrible interviewer and I find him very annoying. Most of the time, he just repeats the WH/Rove "talking points" and always seems very snarky, arrogant or condescending when interviewing Liberals or people who disagree with "the president," yet he's almost always very kind and calm with Right-wingers. He just pisses me off most mornings and his co-host is so clueless when she does interviews, that doesn't help either.

And the sad thing is, I don't think it's an act with Innskeep either, because he grew up in one of the wealthiest suburbs of Indianapolis, Carmel, so it's in his DNA to be a Republican.

[Buzz Clik]

52. You're right -- I misread your post.

And you're correct that his interview style is rigid, clumsy, and somewhat annoying.

But I'm a bit lost about your last paragraph. One's political leanings are dictating by where one's parents lived? You've got about a 60% chance of being right about how his parents voted.

[Up2Late]

65. Believe me, I grew up surrounded by Republicans in Indiana and that's how they are there.

Indiana Republican kids are like Stepford Children when it comes to Politics. I can't even begin to tell you how many times I was shouted down or lectured on the School Bus about how Great a President Richard Nixon was, during the 1972 Election campaign, and I was only in the 2nd Grade at the time.

I'm pretty sure I'm almost the exact same age as the NPR guy too.

[Buzz Clik]

66. Well, he's not particularly good at what he does.

No doubt.

But, you turned out alright... :)

[Eagle_Eye]

5. Bush put him on the job to talk up a new 'Moon Mission'

Michael Griffin's job is to deflect the attention of the American people away from Bush's war for oil by making a big public display of the next moon mission. Griffin and NASA conveniently leave out the part about where the $108 billion will come from. Even if they had $108 Billion right now, thats not even enough to pay the engineers to design and test a new space flight system, much less use the new system to go to the moon.

flying Dutchman
great sea serpent
man in the moon
castle in the air
pipe dream
pie-in-the-sky
happy valley
fairyland
work of fiction
Michael Griffin

[don954]

10. how did they rack a lunar mission up to 108B$?!

the mars direct reference mission was only budgeted 58b$!!!!!

[unpossibles]

19. probably through the magic of

no bid contracts and privateering...er... privatization a la KBR.

Just a guess.

[Enraged_Ape]

37. Actually, I heard that a Project Apollo today would cost $100B

Which, when you consider that the Iraq war is costing us $500+ billion, is pretty staggering. Landing a man on the moon seemed darn near impossible at the start of the 1960s. We could pay for FIVE similarly impossible projects today with the money we're throwing away on Iraq.

ON EDIT: I'm not sure how they came up with a $54 billion figure for a mission to Mars. I'm pretty sure they just made it up.

[Eagle_Eye]

59. Okay, you got me. It was only $104 Billion

NASA: $104B For Next Moon Mission
CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida, Sept. 19, 2005


(CBS/AP) NASA estimated Monday it will cost $104 billion to return astronauts to the moon by 2018 in a new rocket that combines the space shuttle with the capsule of an earlier NASA era.

more at:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/19/tech/main859387.shtml

[RestoreGore]

6. Who cares what you think, Michael Griffin? You are just another BUSH LAPDOG

Who only believes what his SALARY will allow him to. Did he attend Pat Robertson's school too?

[mediawatch]

8. well maybe when FLA sinks

those disbelievers will come around.

[TheMadMonk]

9. Who cares when you control pretty much everhing.

There will profit in dealing with the problems cause by GW. The cost of GW is predicted to be some 20% of GDP. Some of that will be in amelioration measures.

They're betting on profiteering on scarce resources and double dipping by owning a big chunk of selling amelioration measures as well.

According to NASA's latest, we have 10 years to get our shit under control, or else. The next cries from the right will be: "Too Late. We will have to deal with it."

[LuckyTheDog]

11. Riiiight!

I mean, hey, who's to say that the melting of the polar ice caps would be a bad thing, right? What an asshole.

:banghead:

[Tesha]

12. Couldn't you just hear him thinking...

Couldn't you just hear him thinking: "How am I going
to give an answer that has even a *SHRED* of truth
in it yet manage to keep my job..."

Tesha

[Kber]

13. He says..

"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."

Right now, it's the oil executives who are being accorded the "privilege" of determining what our climate will be.

Which is pretty darn arrogant, if you think about it.

[DixieBlue]

27. I was cursing at the radio in my car

when he decided to shed that particular nugget of wisdom.

What a complete and utter ass. Yes, let's put men on the moon while we slowly bake ourselves on earth.

Bloody f*cking brilliant.

[Tesha]

15. Take action. Call NPR and remind them that Steve Inskeep is one of the reasons...

Take action. Call NPR and remind them that Steve Inskeep
is one of the reasons why you no longer contribute to NPR.

My others are Cokie Roberts and Juan Williams (and their
firing of Bob Edwards, but that particular water's been
under the bridge for a while now).

Tesha

[Beausoleil]

16. Who are we

to assume that human beings shouldn't be up to their necks in saltwater? That would be arrogant.

[hatrack]

17. Pathetic and disturbing, but fundamentally unsurprising

I heard his little talk. For starters, he kept referring to Greg Easterbrook as "Esterbrook".

Then, of course, there was his "but it would only cost a couple of billion a year to keep our lunar outpost running" argument, which induced snorts of disbelief in our house.

The global warming thing, though, was almost literally unbelievable.

But of course, he's a Bushie, an apparatchik, a hack - we should be surprised?

[The Stranger]

18. Why is NPR (Neocon Public Relations) airing this shit?

[tinrobot]

20. Ummm... aren't we already deciding which climate we have?

By pumping all this carbon into the air, we're making a decision to warm the planet.

If we stop burning so much fossil fuel, then the planet can decide for itself what temperature it wants to be.

[Blackbird_Highway]

21. About One Billion People!

There's about a billion people around the world who live near the coastline, who don't want their homes, their villages, in some cases their enitre countries to be underwater, due to rising ocean levels caused by global warming, that's who!!!

[slackmaster]

29. I think it's legitimate to question whether planning to stop it is the best course of action

There's about a billion people around the world who live near the coastline, who don't want their homes, their villages, in some cases their enitre countries to be underwater, due to rising ocean levels caused by global warming, that's who!!!

Yes, for those people global warming may cause end of the world as they know it. If you live in Florida or Bangladesh it's a big deal. Someone in Minnesota may think otherwise.

Even if we apply the best possible efforts, make all the difficult changes we can in technology and lifestyle, it may simply not be possible for us to put the brakes on global warming hard enough to prevent sea level rise from displacing those people. Perhaps some of our energy would be best focused on planning how to help them relocate.

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. Hey, c'mon. We'll adjust.

So all those coastal dwellers will have to move inland a little. There will be plenty of space for them because all the breadbasket croplands will be dustbowl desert and therefore useless, so they can move there and make good use of it.

See how it all works out?

[slackmaster]

36. The state of South Carolina may be on the right track

If improvements on your coastal property are more than 50% damaged by inundation from the ocean, you can't rebuild anything on it. You have to move.

;-)

[maddezmom]

22. K&R

[CGowen]

23. They still got thinking people at NASA, a good thing. n/t

[GeorgeGist]

24. Seems like only yesterday ....

'Disastrous effects' of global warming tipping points near, according to new (NASA)study.

http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?section=sci_tech&id=5354420

What a coincidence.

[gatorboy]

25. What do you expect? The man's first job was in missile defense.

Is this the clown that wants to put a base on the moon? A. Base. On. The. Moon.

[RaleighNCDUer]

34. This is that same guy?

i remember wondering at the time why they would put a weapons developer in charge of a civilian space exploration mission.

Only thing I could come up with was orbiting bomb platforms and missile bases on the moon.

[CRH]

46. It was part of the PNAC's Rebuilding Americas Defenses, dream/nightmare, ...

to control outer space to insure military advantage on earth. The thinking was both protecting our own, and destroying others, satellite communication abilities. The moon base was an off shoot of this mis guided use of technology.

A funny aside, is a democrat running for president was treated as a total loony, when he dared to have a vision that someday his states business could be linked through computers and satellites. He was dubbed by the right as Governor Moonbeam for his foresight and vision into the future, of an Internet. Less than twenty years later his vision had become reality.

[ananda]

26. whew

Bushinc has powerful tentacles.

His own scientists say gw is a problem and must be addressed,
and Griffin says other wise.

He's drinkin the same koolaid as Bush and their corporate
masters... and it's green with mint.

[mod mom]

28. I heard this interview and couldn't believe that he had the audacity to comment

that he wasn't sure if the climate change was a bad thing.

WTF?

[tabasco]

30. This is what you get when you put a profiteering mafia in charge of your country.

Thanks, republican voters.

Ben Franklin warned us about you and his greatest fear is realized in the criminal Bush cabal.

[electron_blue]

31. Just a reminder - top NASA admin position is a political appointment, not a scientific one

[Javaman]

32. Newspeak: it's a problem but not a problem.

fucking retarded.

[Marnieworld]

38. which human beings? I vote Scientists

It's pretty measurable dumbass what climate is necessary in order for human beings to be able to survive. I guess knowing what you are talking about could makes someone arrogant but what is his excuse?

This is the head of a scientific agency? Oy

[TrogL]

39. It'll be great for Canada

at least according to the local Freepers. The higher temperatures will mean a longer growing and tourist season. We'll just ignore for the moment:

• drought
  
• forest fires
  
• declining fresh water levels eg. lakes
  
• melting glaciers
  
• changes in vegetation patterns
  
• destruction of soil-holding grasses
  
• changes in migration patterns for birds
  
• new insects and other predators
  

[hatrack]

44. Oh, and they seem to have forgotten the Laurentian Shield

Much of prairie Canada north of the current southern grain belt is mostly granite. Good luck exploiting changing weather patterns to boost yields up there!

[DemoTex]

40. He says what the Bu$hco political commissars tell him to say.

Toeing the party line.

[BootinUp]

41. I think its arrogant for a NASA "administrator"

to foist his RW denial of scientific consensus on the rest of us.

[Lorien]

42. Well I suppose some humans want to live while others pray for "rapture"

so the climate of the near future excites the latter (they'll be disappointed with the end results, though).

These idiots are just drooling at the prospects of shipping lanes through the North Pole and drilling on either pole-never mind that food and oxygen will be in short supply. :eyes:

[Gregorian]

43. He lives on a mountaintop.

This is how societies fall. The poor drown while the rich sit on their mountain top.

That was a pathetic non-discussion. No facts. No argument, other than start growing something like bananas in Alaska.

[baldguy]

45. He knows where his funding comes from.

[Duppers]

51. perzactly! nt.

nt

[Duppers]

50. 2 words

political pressure

[porque no]

53. Goddamn that is stupid.

How utterly ridiculous. anyone who would make that argument is obviously begging for some jail time. How do we hold these fucks responsible for their damage to our country? All these turds need to be monitored for when the globe really starts to see problems and action is to late. we need to hold them responsible for their lies.

[Eugene]

54. So we should let the Bushies choose a climate that displaces over 1 billion people?

Heckofajob! Where does BushCo find these people? :argh:

The latest global warming denial propaganda says that the problem
is not urgent, but Griffin's statement is a jaw-dropper.

Critics have already called Griffin's remarks ignorant and arrogant.
To that I will add "just plain evil."

[rocktivity]

55. Candidate for this month's "You Call This NEWS?" award

What else would you expect an employee of NASA to say? Talk about having your head in the clouds!

:eyes:
rocknation

[hatrack]

57. James Hansen is also an employee of NASA

I'm just sayin . . . .

:toast:

[deweyp]

60. Yeah but he agrees with us.

NT

[hatrack]

61. Who is "us", Dewey? I don't believe it includes you.

Just asking . . .

After all, you don't "believe" that anthropogenic climate change is real, despite the fact that "belief" is something best abandoned at the cathedral door on your way out.

In case you were wondering, it was the "Oh yeah? Mars is warming too, so THERE!" talking point you made on yesterday's NASA thread that pretty much gave you away. You might want to brush up a bit next time.

[deweyp]

62. Don't get your knickers all in a bunch

I was being facetious, hatrack.

[hatrack]

63. OK, then, righto.

Toodles.

[Duppers]

64. hold on a sec

WTF? There are many NASA employees who aren't clones of this asskisser. Hansen's just one of many.

Griffin is an asskissing, paper pushing bean counter who's so far up bush's ass that it isn't funny. His no. one responsibility is funding, so ANY thing out of his mouth has to be seen through that shit-colored glass. Kapisch?

Too bad he had to say this to the public, but he's CYA'ing it and whoring for the funding. He cares little about the science, but who can do the science if the funding isn't there. It's sad.

[Blue_Tires]

56. ugh...

NASA continues its race to the bottom..."The Right Stuff" was on TV yesterday, and "Apollo 13" a few nights ago...how far the mighty have fallen...

I was a kid in the 80s back when teachers used to wheel in the TV to show liftoffs and landings because they were still a big deal---The optimism, scientific ambition, innovation and ingenuity of NASA was something me and every kid my age at that time aspired to be a part of, because it represented what was best about the U.S.A...what in fuck's name happened?

[Barrett808]

58. If it's the difference between a climate which supports agricultural civilization...

...and one that doesn't, I think it's clearly not arrogant to decide on behalf of "all other human beings."

[kerry-is-my-prez]

67. No wonder that organization has gone to hell in a handbasket - another political appointee?

n/t

[Uncle Joe]

68. It must suck to be required to administer under a maladministration. n/t