NASA administrator Michael Griffin offered a lame apology for his denier remarks on climate change. The Associated Press reports that Griffin "regrets airing his personal views about global warming during a recent radio interview." That is, he apologized for speaking his mind. Sad.
In a related story, the media revealed a recent report on how NASA and the Bush administration are gutting earth observation work crucial to tracking climate change:
The Bush administration is drastically scaling back efforts to measure global warming from space, just as the president tries to convince the world the U.S. is ready to take the lead in reducing greenhouse gases.
A confidential report to the White House, obtained by The Associated Press, warns that U.S. scientists will soon lose much of their ability to monitor warming from space using a costly and problem-plagued satellite initiative begun more than a decade ago.
The December 2006 report is available here (PDF). A summary and analysis is available from ClimateScienceWatch (here and here).
Who can doubt that the unfolding tragedy at NASA is in part due to having a global warming denier run the agency?
Here's some hilarious commentary from Stephen Colbert, via ThinkProgress:
One last point: Drudge reported the top story as "NASA chief apologizes for comments skeptical of global warming ..." But that gives the misimpression he was apologizing for what he said, when in fact he was only apologizing for the fact that he said what he believed.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists’ emails hacked at CRU
Cast your vote for the best climate journalism
Comments
View as Flat
VtDoc Posted 6:28 am
06 Jun 2007
However, it is apparent that many environmentalists would actually share the view that the reason to stop climate change is simply because it is manmade. In other words, if we found out tomorrow that the earth was on a "natural" cooling trend that could be stopped by cutting down even more rainforest and burning more fossil fuel, that this would not be desirable. In this event we would stop seeing arguments that we should be trying to affect the climate; no longer would the goal be to preserve the current climate but merely to let nature take its course.
If you take the latter view then any manmade influence on climate is bad, regardless of what the actual change is; this should be explicitly stated. If you take the former view then there is at least some obligation to defend that this current climate is much better than the alternative (ie, there will be more "losers" than "winners" with the predicted changes, factoring in our ability to adapt to predicted changes.)
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:30 am
06 Jun 2007
grist.org
Permalink
Tod Posted 7:33 am
06 Jun 2007
I know I'm an easy target. . . don't do it. I understand your argument, but like Dave, I don't know that it exists in the minds of real world environmentalists.
Permalink
GreenNPR Posted 7:02 pm
06 Jun 2007
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?ml_video=87981
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:42 pm
06 Jun 2007
This guy is head of a giant contractor wormhole that sucks up taxpayer dollars borrowed from china as fast as a real wormhole sucks in planets.
He sent the Space shuttle up with no, I repeat, NO REPAIR of the dangerous tank insulation that killed the crew in that horrible accident.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 12:44 am
07 Jun 2007
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/06/freeman_d ...
He describes one scientist who is using ground level technology to monitor actually CO2 absorbion (that's right CO2, can also decrease through processes) and increase over local areas.
Dyson's main point: Don't trust models. Get good data.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
jimbeyer Posted 1:14 am
07 Jun 2007
Addressing climate change with our existing infrastructure will be enormously expensive, so some thought about what exactly we should do about it is not necessarily a bad idea. The immediate reaction to just stop what we are doing MAY not be the best course.
As a simple micro example, recall the reef building effort that was done in the 70's using old tires. Scientists assured us that the tires would be a great foundation for reef development. They were completely wrong. Now we are pulling the tires out of the ocean....
So, I don't think it's wrong to think out the best strategy for such a huge effort. Makes some sense to me.
But in the end, Michael Griffin was still wrong, even based on his own assumptions. Even if we assume overall a warmer climate is "better" in some sense for humanity, it is still higher problematic because of the dramatic changes that would occur. Shorelines would flood. Biomes would shift. Deserts would flourish and more will be created. Hotter weather, apparently will lead to more extreme weather (more flooding and more droughts). None of this is really contradicted by Griffin's own beliefs. But these changes would be very costly to humanity, far exceeding some fictional net gain of a warmer climate.
I thought he'd been a pretty good NASA administrator, but he really shot himself in the foot (or the head) with this one. An unforced fault....
Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:24 am
07 Jun 2007
Even if one were to accept the projections of the climate models (and I don't), the items you mention -- there results of the (spurious) climate changes are even more out on a limb!
You IPCC'ers are piling speculation upon speculation in a hypnotic fugue and then when someone charges in and busts your "buzz" you get all whiney.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
jimbeyer Posted 3:28 am
07 Jun 2007
You are the one with the buzz.
I was merely following Griffin's own logic based on what he stated, namely that he believed man-made warming of the planet was occurring. If the planet is getting warmer, then some shift in climate, at least locally, would occur in some places. This has already been noticed with earlier last freeze dates in the spring, etc.
I was merely stating his own statements were not self-consistent, and was not adding any IPCC "spin".
Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.
Permalink