http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10801610
"NASA Chief Questions Urgency of Global Warming
Morning Edition, May 31, 2007 · 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."
The following are excerpts from Griffin's conversation with Steve Inskeep, edited for clarity:
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.
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?
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.
"
Originally posted by zeeblebotOnly because he changed NASA's mission statement last year:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10801610
"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.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/science/22nasa.html?ex=1181448000&en=2799e817d6b0a717&ei=5070
Originally posted by zeeblebotI'm very glad about that. Mars could be a saving grace (long term) in the event of climactic disaster.
Morning Edition, May 31, 2007 · NASA administrator Michael Griffin defends the space agency's programs, including plans for a permanent moon base and manned missions to Mars.
Originally posted by richjohnsonAre you arguing that NASA really ought to have "and protect" in it's mission statement?
Only because he changed NASA's mission statement last year:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/science/22nasa.html?ex=1181448000&en=2799e817d6b0a717&ei=5070
At least from my viewpoint, NASA has always been, and should be, an organization dedicated to research - not enforcement.
I don't think we really want a bunch of NASA guys telling industry to cut its emissions. Sure, they can and should explore solutions and propose them to other government agencies, but it seems unreasonable and totally out of their capabilities to assume they can force these solutions to be put into place.
Do you really think that it's NASA that should be blamed for global warming? No..
Originally posted by joneschrI don't really care what NASA does/doesn't do - I just think it is disingenuous of Griffin to disavow responsibility for this issue by citing something that he himself changed last year.
Are you arguing that NASA really ought to have "and protect" in it's mission statement?
At least from my viewpoint, NASA has always been, and should be, an organization dedicated to research - not enforcement.
I don't think we really want a bunch of NASA guys telling industry to cut its emissions. Sure, they can and should explore solutions and propo ...[text shortened]... lace.
Do you really think that it's NASA that should be blamed for global warming? No..
Originally posted by richjohnsonI disagree completely. It is no longer his responsibility, never should have been his responsibility in the first place, and he's stating that it currently isn't his responsibility.
I don't really care what NASA does/doesn't do - I just think it is disingenuous of Griffin to disavow responsibility for this issue by citing something that he himself changed last year.
That all makes perfect sense to me. What is insincere about saying you are neither responsible for something, nor should be?
Even you agree NASA shouldn't be.
Seems like you're being awfully hard on the guy - why don't you attack his argument rather than his character?