06/08/2007 09:49:02 AM EST
NASA Chief Apologizes -- Sort Of
posted by Twba
The head of NASA told scientists and engineers that he regrets airing his personal views about global warming during a recent radio interview, according to a video of the meeting obtained by The Associated Press.
NASA administrator Michael Griffin said in the closed-door meeting Monday at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena that "unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical, and it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it."
"All I can really do is apologize to all you guys.... I feel badly that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this," he said.
[...]
Griffin reiterated that NASA's job was to provide scientific data on global warming and leave it up to policy makers to decide what to do with it. [MSNBC]
Griffin apologized for creating controversy. He didn't apologize for his opinion that global warming may not be serious enough to warrant action by government. However, he acknowledges that it isn't the role of NASA to make that decision to "fight" global warming.
My last
blog post addressing this controversy attracted some interesting comments as did some other posts on this site. I will address some of those comments here.
Leeberal wrote: A super majority of the worlds leading scientist agree as well as NASA that there is indeed man made global warming.
A super majority doesn't matter in science. We lionize the lowly patent clerk in Bern who challenged the super majority and made a tremendous contribution to science.
Leeberal also wrote: The jury is in. There is no debate
There are two heated debates presently underway regarding global warming. The first debate is among scientists and computer modelers. The second is among legislators and activists.
There really is no consensus among scientists about global warming other than that the planet's mean surface temperature has risen about one degree over the last hundred years or so. They do not agree about the role of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide in the warming observed so far. They do not agree about what will happen if humans continue to emit carbon dioxide at the present rate. There is certainly no consensus that we are fast approaching a calamitous tipping point due to our emissions of carbon dioxide.
Scientists are still doing much research on climate. They are researching the role that clouds play in global warming and the relationship between variations in solar irradiance and Earth's climate. Computer climate models give widely varying results depending on the assumptions made by the models' creators regarding clouds and solar irradiance. Until more research is done, the computer models must be taken with a glacier size grain of salt.
Scientists are debating carbon dioxide's contribution to the greenhouse effect. The most significant greenhouse gas is dihydrogen monoxide -- not carbon dioxide. Most scientists believe that dihydrogen monoxide is responsible for about 95% of the greenhouse effect and that carbon dioxide is only about 5% of the effect, with some trace gases like methane making up the rest. Further complicating the debate is the fact that only a small portion of atmospheric carbon dioxide is the result of human activity.
The debate among legislators and activists concerns what actions government should take. Legislators are cherry picking factoids that support their favored policy proposals. Anthropogenic global warming is being used to justify what politicians always want to do, restricting liberty and controlling the populace.
MRFred wrote: 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.
Politicians and environmental activists are not debating how to go about getting rich. They are fighting over how best to restrict our liberty and control our daily lives. The very same people who decry any government intrusion into their bedrooms are quite happy to advocate that government should intrude into my garage and my living room to make sure I drive the right kind of car and install the proper light bulbs.
Even if adhered to, the Kyoto treaty would have made an insignificant impact on global warming. It was always seen as a precursor to a much more severe agreement to reduce emissions by a substantial amount. With gasoline costing about six dollars per gallon, Europe has still not reduced its carbon dioxide emissions enough to meet its Kyoto obligations. How much would the taxes on gas have to be raised in the U.S. in order to reduce emissions by the amount that most activists claim is necessary to avoid runaway global warming?
Far from being a great opportunity to make money, anthropogenic global warming is an excuse to wreck our economy and set back human progress by a generation. China's leaders have already acknowledged this truth. Remember the terrible recession of 1981-82? GDP declined by only two percent. And still atmospheric carbon dioxide increased. Between the peak and the trough of the Great Depression, industrial production in the United States fell by almost half, GDP declined by about one-third. And still atmospheric carbon dioxide increased.
KenTX wrote: It's like environmentalism is some kind of whacky new age religion to these people.
FreeDem wrote: I see little "religion of environmentalism". Unfortunately the only people capable of politicizing science have Chrichton as their spokesman.
FreeDem's comment was in response to my quoting a Michael Crichton speech that pointed out how modern environmentalism is becoming more like religion than science. You be the judge.
The climate crisis also offers us the chance to experience what very few generations in history have had the privilege of knowing: a generational mission; the exhilaration of a compelling moral purpose; a shared and unifying cause; the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict that so often stifle the restless human need for transcendence; the opportunity to rise.
When we do rise, it will fill our spirits and bind us together. Those who are now suffocating in cynicism and despair will be able to breathe freely. Those who are now suffering from a loss of meaning in their lives will find hope.
When we rise, we will experience an epiphany as we discover that this crisis is not really about politics at all. It is a moral and spiritual challenge. At stake is the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth. [LINK]
Is that an excerpt from a sermon heard in a Christian revival meeting tent? No, it was written by a very famous environmental prophet. Some even want him to be our next president.
