NASA Chief Says Global Warming May Not Be an Urgent Problem ‘We Must Wrestle With’

Photo of Noel Sheppard.
By Noel Sheppard | May 31, 2007 - 14:40 ET

It seems almost a metaphysical certitude that the following will not be raised in this evening’s nightly newscasts, or the headlines of tomorrow’s papers.

Regardless, Dr. Michael Griffin, the Administrator of NASA since April 2005, told NPR Thursday morning, “I am not sure that it is fair to say that [global warming] is a problem we must wrestle with” (audio available here).

As ABCNews.com reported Thursday, this has drawn “the ire of his agency's preeminent climate scientists,” in particular, global warming alarmist James Hansen (h/t NBer Sick-n-Tired).

More on that later. First, here are some of Griffin’s remarks as reported by NPR.com (emphasis added throughout):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

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 delicious. Wonderfully, he wasn’t done:

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.

Well, someone ought to tell NASA scientist James Hansen this. After all, as reported by NewsBusters Thursday, Hansen has made it almost his personal mission the past 26 years to use his position at NASA to advance global warming alarmism in order to impact legislation.

As such, according to ABCNews.com, Hansen wasn’t pleased with Griffin’s remarks (emphasis added):

Griffin's comments — released in transcript form by NPR — immediately drew stunned reaction from James Hansen, NASA's top climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

"It's an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement," Hansen told ABC News. "It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change."

Hansen believes Griffin's comments fly in the face of well-established scientific knowledge that hundreds of NASA scientists have contributed to.

"It's unbelievable," said Hansen. "I thought he had been misquoted. It's so unbelievable."

Nice way to talk about the head of the agency you work for, James.

Apparently, news of the upcoming NPR segment created quite a deluge of media inquiries at NASA. As a result, Griffin sent out the following press release Wednesday evening (emphasis added):

“NASA is the world's preeminent organization in the study of Earth and the conditions that contribute to climate change and global warming. The agency is responsible for collecting data that is used by the science community and policy makers as part of an ongoing discussion regarding our planet's evolving systems. It is NASA's responsibility to collect, analyze and release information. It is not NASA's mission to make policy regarding possible climate change mitigation strategies. As I stated in the NPR interview, we are proud of our role and I believe we do it well."

Think we’ll hear anything about this apparent difference of opinion on tonight’s news broadcasts or in the papers tomorrow?

I'm not holding my breath.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

No, this one does not fit the

No, this one does not fit the common storyline.  Noel, this will stay right where we are, it has none of the trademark "doomsday scenarios" that are required to make the nightly newscast. 

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.

Try telling our cable news friends that.  We can clone humans, we've figured out evolution, we know all of the species on the planet, guess it stands to reason that we can create climate as well.  It's time they realize there are just some things that the human race will never be able to do.  And why does this not sit well with them?  Because it might be that they would have to believe that there could be a, (dare I say it?) "higher power"  than cable news.

Nice way to talk about the he

Nice way to talk about the head of the agency you work for, James.

But given this attitude towards leadership and his track record of accuracy **cough** you don't dare suggest that The James have his public statements reviewed prior to release -or he'll appear on countless news programs and talk shows crying about how he's been silenced by the evil administration.

I swear to believe in global

I swear to believe in global warming when they can give me an accurate forecast for next month.

Mother nature is a bitch - Ninth Corollary of Murphy's Law

Next month? What about 3 days

Next month? What about 3 days from now?

A bonafided and certified member of the beer guzzling, NASCAR watching middle class.

GW alarmists = future suicide bombers?

GW alarmists = future suicide bombers?

Will the level headed naysayers be safe, or future targets?

A lot of us will face the AGW

A lot of us will face the AGW Nuremberg Climate Crimes Trials

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

Meanwhile, Algore flys off to

Meanwhile, Algore flys off to another APGW propaganda stop, in his private jet, burning tons of fuel and emitting clouds of greenhouse gases...

Come on mattm, he bought his

Come on mattm, he bought his carbon off-sets, he is good to go!!!!!

I'm just mad because he didn'

I'm just mad because he didn't buy the discount offsets I was selling...

How Pelosi

"It's an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement," Hansen told ABC News. "It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change."

How Pelosi of Hansen.....just who is the chief again?

Considering his batting aver

Considering his batting average on climate predictions, Hansen probably shouldn't be using words like "ignorance" and "implications".

I would ask which human being

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.

To which Hansen raises his hand and declares himself that person!

I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

Agreed. Maybe Hansen should re-read that part of the statement.

Just came rushing over to tel

Just came rushing over to tell NB about this and Noel - natch! - already has it up.

James Hansen's co-worker (boss, actually).  Makes things a tad uncomfortable around the water cooler.

Stress ball?

Makes things a tad uncomfortable around the water cooler.

Interesting point.  Obviously it's too late to consider a stress ball.  Mankind (including the water cooler crowd) would best be served if Hansen was permanently reassigned to the South Pole to continue his boss bashing....er....climate change work.

I can see it now... I reme

I can see it now...

I remember the headlines a while back screaming about Bush trying to silence global warming scientists because a young political appointee had the audacity to suggest that Hansen submit his work to his superiors to review prior to being published. The suggestions was made based on Hansen's track record of completely overblowing predictions for years, hurting NASA's reputation (see the other recent NB post). NASA administration decided if the agency's reputation was backing these reports, they had a duty to verify their accuracy prior to publication.

...So now, as then, Hansen would be so thoroughly silenced that he would appear on every news and talk show aired for two weeks afterwards. Seems the best way to silence him is just to ignore him.

James Hansen is THAT guy?? 

James Hansen is THAT guy?? 

In view of his record on climate predictions, if they were, in fact, trying to silence him, they were doing him a favor.

"er......climate change

"er......climate change work."

acu,

Don't fall into their trap bro, keep calling it 'global warming'.  If we acquiesce to their quiet change of terminology from global warming to climate change, then they can claim ALL weather and climate phenom to their cause.  They will claim that whether it cools, warms or stays steady it is all mans fault from the burning of fossil fuels!

fossil fuels?

Shouldn't they be called carbon fuels?

We don't really believe that all of the oil and coal that has been used actually came from fossilized plants and dinosaurs?

Whereas, on this planet, it i

Whereas, on this planet, it is understood that the oil, gas and coal that is produced from the surface, shallow sub-surface or deep sub-surface is from the breakdown of organic chemicals, and material, there is still some debate (based on extra-terrestrial bodies) that some of the natural gas that is/has been produced may be for inorganic carbon sources, possibly migrated from the upper mantle.

Nevertheless, to be AGW politically correct, I suppose it should be 'carbon fuels'.

Wonder what his eval will loo

Wonder what his eval will look like this year?

Provided that over the top global warming alarmist is on the form.

Sad thing is Hansen has media

Sad thing is Hansen has media supported tenure.  Imagine if Griffin had a valid reason to let Hansen go---do you think he would?  Hell no.  Life as he knows it would be over.  Then, and only then  would Griffin get widespread exposure from the MSM---and it dang sure wouldn't be for his opposing views to AGW.

Hansen is virtually untouchab

Hansen is virtually untouchable.

He is tenured faculty at Columbia University in addition to his position with NASA and he is also a fellow in the NAS.

The worst thing about this man is his influence over who gets NSF grant money to study in this field and who gets published in PNAS after they do get a grant.  He sits on the NAS committee that decides which peers will review submitted papers in the filed, pretty much guaranteeing that anybody who publishes an anti-AGW paper will get spiked by one or more hostile reviewers.   He also sits on the NSF and NAS committes that decide who will review grant applications for research funds, choking off many opponents at this juncture as well.   He and his shills are largely responsible for the growing tilt iniside the body of climate literature.  Folks who disagree need not apply.

He also knows how to choose his battles.  The AGWer-Skeptic debate staged in NYC a few weeks ago did not involve him inspite of being held in his back yard.  The AGW team flew Dr. Richard Sommerville in from the Scripps Institue in California.  Hansen lives right in NY.   I think he wanted no part of what he knew was going to be a grim evening for his side of the debate.  He should have been there to address his opposite number on the skeptic side, Dr. Richard Lindzen.

pretty much guaranteeing that

pretty much guaranteeing that anybody who publishes an anti-AGW paper will get spiked by one or more hostile reviewers

Wow.  Who is silencing whom?

AF -- evals--

AF  -- evals--I worked for thirty one years for a company whose eval was 4,3,2, 1 with 1 being the highest. A "5" was when you were put on performnace notice and had a certain amount of time to improve or you were gone.

My question--can GW raise him from a 3 to a 5??

""It's an incredi

""It's an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement," Hansen told
ABC News. "It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the
implications of climate change
."

Not nearly as arrogant or ignorant as believing we can control the climate.

Karl Rove can.

Karl Rove can.

Hansen should read our own NAS findings on the subject

Hansen should read what our own Academies of sciences says about "global warming"...you can read it here  http://dels.nas.edu/basc/reportDetail.php?link_id=3475

In summary it says it's been getting hotter for the last 25 years, probably in the last 100 years, possibly since 900 AD (little ice age) and beyond that no confidence at all

roconnell  aka climate change skeptic

http://climatechangeskeptic.blogspot.com/

Just looked at this article a

Just looked at this article at ABC.  There were hundreds of responses.  Most of the ones I read were well thought out AGW skeptics responses (or should I say agreements with this particular article.)   ABC has another article up now where it admits the models have trouble with cloud cover- delicious!  Yesterday there was another article about AGW.  One of the Global Warming True Believers tried to imply that many of the skeptics were really just using different screennames to post- he/ she could not believe there were really so many skeptics.  LOL

"...The Democrats love chaos. The Republicans love order and discipline and waiting your turn."  Chris Matthews on "Gregory Live"  as reported by Scott Whitlock 16MAY2007 blog "Matthews Rips..."<

I like this one:  Maybe som

I like this one:  Maybe some of these 'scientists' would better use their predictive talents to winning the lottery. 

Also, one of the AGW advocates sounded strangely like Belag, saying all skeptic objections had been answered and urging everyone to go to realclimate to read for themselves.

He may be right

I run a site on global warming (www.globalwarming-factorfiction.com).
It is designed to try to give both sides of the issue, I think I do a
fairly good job of it since WSJ.com has referenced me several times.

I think that we need to look more closely at Mr. Griffin's words. If GW is
caused by nefarious human activity than we should do something about
it. But if GW is caused by the natural changes of global climate, then
we need to live with it and adapt. There is a high likelihood that the
latter is true and many climate scientists think humans are not the
root cause. In fact, in a recent study of scientists only 39% felt
that carbon dioxide reductions were a priority (http://globalwarming-factorfiction.com/2007/06/02/they-call-this-a-consensus/).

We simply do not know enough about our climate to take dramatic action on this issue.

SI put your link here you ma

S

I put your link here you may find some material

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.