Why is NASA using tax money to build a moon base and not trying to solve global warming?

[Captain_Nemo]

Source: NPR

How can we get Michael Griffin removed from his position at NASA for using our tax money to fund a permanent moon base isntead of actively pursuing Global Warming solutions?

"NASA administrator Michael Griffin defends the space agency's programs,
including plans for a permanent moon base and manned missions to Mars. He
also says that while NASA studies climate change, the agency has no
authorization to "take actions to affect climate change in either one way or
another."

Read more: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10571499http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/griffin_bio.html

---

More on Michael Griffin:
http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/griffin_bio.html
Nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States
Senate, Michael Griffin began his duties as the 11th Administrator of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration on April 14, 2005. As
Administrator, he leads the NASA team and manages its resources to advance
the U.S. Vision for Space Exploration.

[hippiechick]

1. ... because Halliburton doesn't SOLVE problems, it BUILDS stuff ...

:shrug: ... and you know sure as heck there are some contracts being written for the 'building' of this 'moonbase'.

[Divine Discontent]

2. I agree, this should be their #1 PRIORITY now they've released that other news n/t

[MethuenProgressive]

3. Because it's not the National Global Warming Agency?

Just a guess, mind you...

[Book Lover]

4. Because that is not part of its mission

Why would our space exploration agency be charged with NOAA's job?

[Captain_Nemo]

17. “To understand and protect our home planet" was part of the original mission statement of NASA.

IT was changed in 2006. See wikipedia:

From 2002, NASA’s mission statement, used in budget and planning documents,
read: “To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe
and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers ... as only
NASA can.”


In early February 2006, the statement was altered, with the
phrase “to understand and protect our home planet” deleted.<6> Some outside
observers believe the change is related to criticism of government policy on
global warming by NASA scientists like James Hansen, but NASA officials have
denied any such connection, pointing to new priorities for space
exploration. The chair and ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs wrote NASA Administrator Griffin
on July 31, 2006 expressing concerns about the change.<7> NASA also canceled
or delayed a number of earth science missions in 2006.<8>

[Book Lover]

45. While I do appreciate this clarification

I do think posting it nearly a half-dozen times in this thread is tiresome.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Need base on moon to threaten rest of the world with our military might

in the cosmos.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

22. We cannot allow a moon base gap! n/t

[IChing]

41. That would lead to an intelligence gap!

Brain damage-Dark side of the Moon.


"The lunatic is on the grass
The lunatic is on the grass
remembering games and daisy chains and laughs
got to keep the loonies on the path "

And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear
you shout and no one seems to hear
and if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon"

[Canuckistanian]

61. Those Saturnians are a grave and gathering threat

And if they don't let the inspectors in, why, there'll be planetary regime change!

[The_Casual_Observer]

6. The chief of NASA's position is that we are in no position

to judge what is a the "right" climate. This is a bizarre slant that I had never considered.
It's absolutely weird.

[Captain Hilts]

9. You haven't seen yesterday's news. NASA came out with a statement on warming. nt

[Captain_Nemo]

16. Yes, I thought it indicative of an agenda to let hte man-made crisis roll and see what happens?

THis is criminal.

[Codeine]

7. Global warming

isn't NASA's job. Spaceships and moon bases and stuff -- that's NASA's job.

GW will be fixed by changes in human behavior and regulation of human activity, not NASA or NOAA or whoever.

[Captain_Nemo]

26. NASA Mission Statement: “To understand and protect our home planet;

From Wikipedia:

From 2002, NASA’s mission statement, used in budget and planning documents,
read: “To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe
and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers ... as only
NASA can.” In early February 2006, the statement was altered, with the
phrase “to understand and protect our home planet” deleted.<6> Some outside
observers believe the change is related to criticism of government policy on
global warming by NASA scientists like James Hansen, but NASA officials have
denied any such connection, pointing to new priorities for space
exploration. The chair and ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs wrote NASA Administrator Griffin
on July 31, 2006 expressing concerns about the change.<7> NASA also canceled
or delayed a number of earth science missions in 2006.<8>

[krispos42]

36. "As only NASA can."

So NASA will warn us of solar flares and incoming asteroids, like 99942 Apophis and work on plans to detect them even sooner and more accurately. They will also launch and control the various earth-monitoring satellites so that other, dedicated private and public corporations can see what's going on and both react to and prevent problems.

[Codeine]

39. As a Space Agency

not as the go-to guys for every crisis we face. NASA is about spacecraft -- why do you even want them working on GW? It's not their field, not their expertise.

[Captain_Nemo]

47. Based on the NPR interview I think NASA's mission statement needs revising

NPR: It has been mentioned that NASA is not spending as much money as it could to study climate change — global warming — from space. Are you concerned about global warming

I'm aware that global warming exists. I understand that the bulk of scientific evidence accumulated supports the claim that we've had about a one degree centigrade rise in temperature over the last century to within an accuracy of 20 percent. I'm also aware of recent findings that appear to have nailed down — pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade. Whether that is a longterm concern or not, I can't say.

NPRDo you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?

I have no doubt 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.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10571499

[Captain Hilts]

8. Good question Skipper! nt

[Darkhawk32]

10. Because then we can fight it over there so we don't have to fight it over here. n/t

[bryant69]

11. Well if he was appointed by Bush he should probably be replaced

That said, even if you buy the premise that NASA goal should be to fight global warming, well, can't they do both? Continue their former mission of space exploration and their new mission of solving global warming?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[n2doc]

12. Griffin is doing what he is told to do

The problem lies with Bushco. NASA's direction is set by the Administration, and they have spent years pushing this Moon stuff. Congress could do more to prod NASA and the other agencies but so far has chosen not to do so.

If you want NASA (and NOAA, and NSF, and DOE...) to spend more time, $$$ and effort on Global warming research, work to get an environmentally-friendly president in office. IMHO, the best candidate for that role ain't running yet. But and Democrat would be better than any Republican in this area.

[Captain_Nemo]

29. Yes, I think you are right. This statement by Griffin lies squarely in Bush's lap. Criminal.

[NeedleCast]

13. Because it's not NASA's role?

Your question is sort of like asking why the Deparment of Justice is using tax dollars to fight crime (and, apparently, fire anyone who disagrees with G-dubs) instead of trying to solve global warming.

[Captain_Nemo]

14. Not necessarily. “To understand and protect our home planet" was the original mission statement of

NASA. It was changed in 2006:

From Wikipedia

"From 2002, NASA’s mission statement, used in budget and planning documents,
read: “To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe
and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers ... as only
NASA can.”

In early February 2006, the statement was altered, with the
phrase “to understand and protect our home planet” deleted.<6>

Some outside
observers believe the change is related to criticism of government policy on
global warming by NASA scientists like James Hansen, but NASA officials have
denied any such connection, pointing to new priorities for space
exploration. The chair and ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs wrote NASA Administrator Griffin
on July 31, 2006 expressing concerns about the change.<7> NASA also canceled
or delayed a number of earth science missions in 2006.<8>

[Blue_In_AK]

15. Aeronautics and Space

don't appear to have too much to do with global climate change, unless you're counting the emissions from rockets. :shrug:

[qdemn7]

18. And just how

Would you propose NASA do that? What can NASA with its infrastructure do to fight GW? Their budget is only a paltry $16.8 billion a year. That's about 5% of either the DOD or Entitlement Programs.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. And why isn't

the Veteran's Administration doing more to spay/neuter feral cats?!

Oh... because it's not their job.

[Captain_Nemo]

25. NASA Mission Statement: “To understand and protect our home planet;

The imminent destruction of the species should be over a moon base. If we become extinct, or if our national security is broken becasue of global warming then occupying a moon base seems illogical. In retrospect it would be a waste of money. Thus, if we continue on this path we would,essentially, be financing our own destruction.


From Wikipedia

From 2002, NASA’s mission statement, used in budget and planning documents,
read: “To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe
and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers ... as only
NASA can.”

In early February 2006, the statement was altered, with the
phrase “to understand and protect our home planet” deleted.<6> Some outside
observers believe the change is related to criticism of government policy on
global warming by NASA scientists like James Hansen, but NASA officials have
denied any such connection, pointing to new priorities for space
exploration. The chair and ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs wrote NASA Administrator Griffin
on July 31, 2006 expressing concerns about the change.<7> NASA also canceled
or delayed a number of earth science missions in 2006.<8>



Maybe we should stop the tragedy before it happens?

[MonkeyFunk]

30. Yes

and to do so in the context of space exploration.

This is a pretty silly argument.

[Captain_Nemo]

43. I would think it is silly to use our money for something

not useful when a looming crisis is staring us in the face. Don't you think it is time to think outside the box? Given the facts that scientists have warned us about?

[kestrel91316]

20. Because it's the National Aeronautical and SPACE Administration?

[Captain_Nemo]

23. NASA Mission Statement : “To understand and protect our home planet;

From 2002, NASA’s mission statement, used in budget and planning documents,
read: “To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe
and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers ... as only
NASA can.” In early February 2006, the statement was altered, with the
phrase “to understand and protect our home planet” deleted.<6> Some outside
observers believe the change is related to criticism of government policy on
global warming by NASA scientists like James Hansen, but NASA officials have
denied any such connection, pointing to new priorities for space
exploration. The chair and ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs wrote NASA Administrator Griffin
on July 31, 2006 expressing concerns about the change.<7> NASA also canceled
or delayed a number of earth science missions in 2006.<8>

Wikipedia

[Blue-Jay]

34. OK, OK! We've read that. Stop posting it.

[JVS]

21. Because that's their job

[leftofthedial]

24. because it is a military organization

and for the same reasons that CNN covers missing blondes and traffic accidents

[Captain_Nemo]

27. But didn't we ascertain that gloabl warming was a risk to our national security?

[leftofthedial]

31. who is "we"?

[Captain_Nemo]

44. The Pentagon

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

[Uncle Joe]

28. Griffin is doing a heckuva job, he knows

at the rate things are going, eventually, even Paraguay will be uninhabitable.

[krispos42]

32. Not NASA's job

Their job is spaceflight and aeronautics. They'll develop, build, launch, and maintain your climate-monitoring satellites. They'll even help run them, because it's good practice for the deep-space probes we launch to other planets and moons.

But unless in the course of developing space technology they come across some gadget like a wind-powered carbon-dioxide splitter, it's not their job. Call the Department of Energy or the Department of Transportation.

[NoPasaran]

33. The government doesn't believe in global warming

They've pretty much acknowledged that the moon exists.

[JHB]

35. Two separate issues; no need for either-or.

Michael Griffin needs to be removed because he's a typical Bush flunkie and ignores global warming.

The moonbase needs to be scruitinized thanks to typical Bush contracting patterns, but that doesn't speak to the merits or demerits of a moon base in general.

[1620rock]

38. Leave NASA alone. Space exploration is one of the few things

that this country can take pride in.

[JHB]

54. Don't misunderstand

I just want to make sure Chim-Chim doesn't wreck NASA by using it as a givaway-contract-mill.

[BeyondThePale]

37. Simple really... the earth will soon be uninhabitable, so we will all have..

to live on the moon.

Glad I could help!

[Forkboy]

40. Where else can they build the space ark for the Haves?

:)

[Beelzebud]

42. Evolution did not end with our thumbs.

[Captain_Nemo]

49. I wold think climate change would hinder our evolution.

[Beelzebud]

50. I would think we could multi-task...

[Captain_Nemo]

62. With the amount of money being sunk into Iraq? Why bother with the moon? Save the species.

[eppur_se_muova]

46. Why is this framed as an either/or question?

Is there some reason they can't do both?

I get your point about global warming (answer: because Repukes are in charge) but that does not preclude NASA taking an interest in, you know, space stuff.

[Captain_Nemo]

48. Because according to the NPR interview Griffin is saying that there is climate change yet

he doesn't feel the need to put money into solving it. Climate change casued by people is unprecedented. Shouldn't we all be on the same page?


NPR: Do you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?

GRIFFIN: I have no doubt 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.


NPR: Is that thinking that informs you as you put together the budget? That something is happening, that it's worth studying, but you're not sure that you want to be battling it as an army might battle an enemy?

GRIFFIN: 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.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10571499

[hellbound-liberal]

51. The guest on the previous show, Gregg Eastrbrook asked the same questions

and I think that is what Captain Nemo is getting at. According to Mr. Easterbrook, NASA has their priorities screwed up in pushing a useless base on the moon rather than using the technology in which they are experts to solve more pressing problems. I think we are all aware that Griffin, as a Bush appointee, is in place to support the goals of the Bush administration which are , in order, 1) get reelected, 2) funnel federal funds to their cronies. I think he made a very convincing argument that NASA needs to rethink it's priorities. Here is a link:

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

[Captain_Nemo]

55. Thank you. Wonderfully said. and, I would further the argument by saying Griffin needs removal.

[Posteritatis]

53. Don't you know the entirety of everything is B&W choices between straw men? (nt)

[eppur_se_muova]

58. SO THAT'S IT!! :headslap: I see the world in a whole new light now. nt

[Posteritatis]

60. That just makes you a brainwashed traitor to your former cause! (nt)

;)

[librechik]

52. the "wrong people" make money off solving global warming, that's why

why do we kid ourselves that we live in a free and honest country when we have been tuned into a dictatorship of extortiona and thievery, all sold to us with a happy face?

we are so screwn.

[AnnieBW]

56. Because we're going to move there

after we finish trashing the Earth.

[Captain_Nemo]

64. Probably just the ones who can afford it.

[cynatnite]

57. I think it has something to with the fact that the moon is in space

:eyes:

[gravity]

59. What solutions do you want NASA to come up with?

There have been some extreme ideas like spiking the oceans with iron, but none of them are practical and have many problems of their own.

If you want to lesson the effects of global warming, just use less energy.

[Captain_Nemo]

63. With 300 billion of our money being used to build a base on the moon I would think

that money could be used better elsewhere. This is our tax money. Maybe prioritizing is in order here.

[murloc]

65. We can learn alot about out planet from "up there"

Other than obvious fact that as a nation we can walk and chew gum at the same time, we learned quite a bit about Earth the last time we went to the moon, and we only spent a few weeks on the surface on the moon. After all, it is theorized that moon is nothing more than a chunk of the Earth blown off a few billion years ago.

There was a HUGE, massive increase in environmental awareness immediately after the December 1968 moon orbital mission and photos were sent back of the first "Earth rise". Much of the energy and passion we see today in protecting our environment has its roots all the way back to the moments when that beautiful photo was unveiled to the world. Only 14 months later, the nation celebrated its first "Earth Day".

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_102.html

We can explore space and protect our planet at the same time. But better than that, both efforts complement each other, and many of the answers we need "down here", may actually be "up there"

[Duppers]

66. Griffin is such a whore

He's so far up bush's ass, it's not funny.

But "it's for the good of the agency."


Ooooooooooh!