06/01/2007 02:26:06 PM EST

NASA Chief In Hot Water Over Global Warming Comment

posted by Twba

NASA administrator Michael Griffin triggered a storm of outrage when he discussed global warming in an interview with Steve Inskeep.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
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.

Do 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.

How could the Bush administration have such an uneducated fool in charge of NASA?

Griffin received a bachelor's degree in Physics from Johns Hopkins University; a master's degree in aerospace science from Catholic University of America; a Ph.D. in aerospace engineering from the University of Maryland; a master's degree in electrical engineering from the University of Southern California; a master's degree in applied physics from Johns Hopkins University; a master's degree in business administration from Loyola College; and a master's degree in Civil Engineering from George Washington University. [NASA]

Where did Al Gore earn his Bachelor of Science in Physics? He doesn't have one. Al Gore, amateur climatologist, only has a Bachelor of Arts in Government.

< Senator Bill Nelson Votes for Torture | Even Bush's Daddy Agrees >
 Display:
NASA Chief In Hot Water Over Global Warming Comment | 17 comments (17 topical, 0 hidden)
graduate stipends (none / 0)
Sounds like this guy really liked living on a graduate stipend (or has NO life).  Based on my estimates that puts him at between 13-17 years of college assuming he went full time. 

Makes you wonder if Bush asked his aides to find the guy with the most degrees to give the job to.  I guess to him 7 degrees means something other than "I have no fucking clue what I want to do with my life"

by alphasigmookie on 06/01/2007 11:28:25 PM EST

Denial aint just a river in Egypt (none / 0)
A super majority of  the worlds leading scientist agree as well as NASA  that there is indeed man made global warming.

I  don't get it .They can invent a cure for polio. send people to the moon. Predict hurricanes and they cant sort this one out?   Rush Limbaugh is the leading authority in this field and its about time these idiots with the doctorates and years of experience start to realize this.




--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 06/02/2007 12:16:15 AM EST

Global Warming is another Y2K Hoax (none / 0)
"A super majority of  the worlds leading scientist agree as well as NASA  that there is indeed man made global warming."

The mainstream scientific community is demonstrating blowback against this pseudo-scientific socialistic political movement.

This scam should be totally unmasked, just in time for the 2008 elections.

by KenTX on 06/02/2007 12:25:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Wikipedia... THE source for info on Global Warming (none / 0)
Who the fug is Roy Spencer?

Your theories are quaint. And your total ignorance to the facts is exactly why you don't have any credibility whatsoever.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 06/02/2007 12:30:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
whoopsie (none / 0)
I count three uses of the word "you" in the post.

Shame on Y-O-U!

by KenTX on 06/02/2007 12:37:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I will let you in on something this ONE time. (none / 0)
 Trying to push the buttons of  people that are smarter than you. only makes you look more the fool.

Im ok with that

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 06/02/2007 12:49:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ooh! A dissenter! (none / 0)

You consider 1% of dissenting scientists as blowback?  And why the hell are you using a political term like "blowback" to describe a scientific debate?

This guy is just one of those "Yeah, but it might be wrong" guys.  Fine, any theory might be wrong, but as a scientistist you have to cough up convincing evidence that it IS wrong, or that yours is right.  

Here is this same guy on evolution: 

"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism."

I think this is a pointless statement.  Anything can be framed as a scientific theory.  I can propose that I pulled the world out of my ass if I want too.  There has never been a rule that says you can't introduce a competing theory.  The hard part is coming up with supporting evidence for it.  If you don't produce this you simply get ignored or brushed aside.  It's kind of mealy-mouthed for a scientist to sit there and say "creationism is science too!"  Come up with real and substantial evidence that the world was created rather than evolved and you don't have to try to make your point politically.

by bfaul on 06/02/2007 11:32:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
like Y2K...maybe (none / 0)
Is global warming like Y2K...possibly.  However what ken is forgetting is that Y2K was not a disaster precisely because we as a society came together and solved the problem before the deadline.  Yes there were a few glitches here and there, but nothing catestrophic because smart computer scientists frantically fixed the code before it was too late.

The same can happen with global warming.  We can and most likely will find a solution before the problem becomes to great.  Does that mean we can ignore the problem...no...but i'm not yet building a bunker and stockpiling food for armegeddon either. 

by alphasigmookie on 06/02/2007 12:25:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
baby steps (none / 0)
The first step in solving a problem is admitting it exists. It seems like bush just took this step recently.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 06/02/2007 01:35:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Y2K Revisted (none / 0)
"Yes there were a few glitches here and there, but nothing catestrophic because smart computer scientists frantically fixed the code before it was too late."

No. There weren't a few glitches. There were zero glitches. The world was bracing for catastrophe and nothing ever happened.

The world spent billions of dollars to fix a problem that never existed. You think people in the know were ever going to explain the joke to the public? Hell no! They were making huge amounts of money as "consultants".

The worst offenders in this colossal sham were the mainstream media whores who hyped up a non-existent problem to sell ink. 

I don't care if the scare is bird flu, Y2K bug, global warming, or whatever, if you don't see people dying, don't worry about it.

By contrast, when al Qaeda kills innocent people, and AIDS kills people in Africa, then you have a quantifiable problem to deal with.

by KenTX on 06/02/2007 04:00:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I gotcha (none / 0)
Oh I understand...forget about avoiding catastrophies we should only respond to them and clean up the mess afterwards.  I take it we also shouldn't have listened to the engineers who said the leves in NO wouldn't hold a major hurricane back either.  I mean what were the odds of a direct hit by a category 4-5 hurricane anyway?

http://www.popsci.com/popsc i/science/22040b4511b84010v gnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.htm l

Notice the date on this article from popular science...damn alarmists!

by alphasigmookie on 06/02/2007 05:42:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I salute your efforts, but... (none / 0)
You call yourself a libertarian? The problem with New Orleans has nothing to do with the amount of money spent for hurricane preparedness. Take a look at your own article.

“New Orleans has nearly completed its Hurricane Protection Project, a $740-million plan led by Naomi to ring the city with levees that could shield residents from up to category-3 storm surges. Meanwhile, Winer and others at the Army Corps are considering a new levee system capable of holding back a surge from a category-5 hurricane like Ivan, which threatened the city last year.”

“To determine exactly where and how high to build these levees, the engineers have enlisted the aid of a 3-D computer-simulation program called ADCIRC (Advanced Circulation Model). ADCIRC incorporates dozens of data points—including seabed and coastal topography, wind speed, tidal variation, ocean depth and water temperature—and charts a precise map of where the storm surge would inundate New Orleans. The category-5 levee idea, though, is still in the early planning stages; it may be decades before the new barriers are completed. Until then, locals had better keep praying to Helios.”

We can see the action George Bush took to protect New Orleans prior to Katrina, but it is difficult to tell what action Bill Clinton took during the eight years he was president.

Did you know that New Orleans was positioned above sea level when it was founded in the 1700s? Yep. That’s what happens when you levee-up a river delta. The land subsides, just like it did in Amsterdam. New Orleans is a city that shouldn’t exist, because it is 20 feet below sea level in the sweet spot of the Hurricane Ally catcher’s mitt. It is inherently at odds with nature, and sooner or later, nature will reclaim the delta.

by KenTX on 06/02/2007 06:59:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yea bush did a bang up job on Katrina (none / 0)
Yea bush really did New Orleans right. 


Barbara Bush said today, referring to the
poor who had lost everything back home and evacuated, "This is working very well for them."

Like mommy like son

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 06/03/2007 01:10:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Sick humor (none / 0)

Ken's messing with you.  Even he knows and agrees with the  public consensus on Bush and the Bushettes failure to react to that crisis.  Hell, we certainly had no reason to expect otherwise from him after establishing this legacy of excellence:

title=

by OneHitKill on 06/03/2007 05:14:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No Ken (none / 0)
The Y2K problem really did exist. This is a subject I have some expertise in and yes it was avoided because we did something about it before it happened.

Now I could get technical and explain what it was all about at your or anyone else’s request. But the basic principal is that countless systems had to be told that 00 stood for 2000 and not 1900.

It would have sucked if everyone woke up on 01/01/2000 to find out that their stock was only worth what it was on 01/01/1900. If a system “decided” that the stock didn’t even exist yet that would be even worse, would it not?  There are countless other examples.

I believe the analogy you are looking for here is something about a mushroom cloud and a smoking gun.

by z1p101 on 06/05/2007 04:46:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Mainstream, rightwing nut job, all the same (none / 0)

A link to  Roy Spencer on Wikipedia is enough evidence for me.  How much more mainstream can you get than this?

 

I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.

 

Not only is global warming a scam but intelligent design is also solid science. It's too bad Roy doesn't think much of you Ken:

He is principally known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award. He is also a vocal supporter of intelligent design and is skeptical of the view that human activity is primarily responsible for global warming. He also thinks that KenTX is a douche.

by libertine on 06/04/2007 05:19:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Y2K was no hoax... (none / 0)

I made a fortune mitigating Y2K vulnerabilities.  Y2K spending corrected a lot of problems other than Y2K issues and spurred the growth of  the IT industry.

Even if Global Warming is over hyped, we are running out of oil, eventually. Consequently, there are similar fortunes to made in Global Warming mitigation, alternative energy, fuels and conservation technologies...get with the program. 

 Something will replace oil...Global warming will facilitate that:

 

Prior to the second half of the 19th century, whale oil was the primary source of fuel for lighting in the United States. The whaling industry was the mainstay for many New England coastal communities for over 200 years. By 1900, the whaling industry had collapsed, due in part to the discovery and refining of petroleum from the western Pennsylvania oil fields.

"Pseudo-scientific socialistic political movement" ; Now thats really funny coming from you.

 

 

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 06/04/2007 11:41:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
NASA Chief In Hot Water Over Global Warming Comment | 17 comments (17 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: