I would like to congratulate Mr. Griffin for his statements regarding global warming. As a scientist, I also do not deny that climate change is occuring, but I agree with Mr Griffin that it remains unclear whether man is responsible for the changes, or indeed whether anything in man's power can be done to prevent change. The worldt, over millions of years, has been through multiple cycles of dramatic changes without human causation or intervention.

Not that we do not need to be kind to our planet... quite the contrary. It is indeed our privilege to reside on this planet and our duty to our children to use resources sparingly.

Mr Griffin was asked to answer questions about NASA's program, and was cornered into voicing what is probably an unpopular opinion in our presently sensationalistic press.

While pursuing its main objectives, NASA has been a great resource for the investigation of environmental causes over many years. They conduct their own research and cooperate with scientific endeavors from other private and federal sources. We all need to allow NASA some latitude and vision in determining their own program goals- if the public an government were responsible for establishing all of NASA's priorities, just imaging what might NOT have been accomplished in the past 50 years.

If NASA's name was the EPA, then perhaps it would not be reasonable to attempt to set up a "motel 6" on the moon... but its name is not the EPA. I'm betting, though, that this motel will have some scientific instruments that might be useful for the further study of climate change. Remember that there are things that need our support in this world, other than Iraq and alternative fuels for our SUV's.

Sincerely,
J.D. Menteer
Los Angeles, CA

Sent by Jondavid Menteer, MD | 10:27 AM ET | 05-31-2007

Mr. Griffin's comments on the question of whether our climate is optimal is almost irrevelent. We have adapted our where we live (e.g., along the coast) how we manage natural resources (e.g., water supply, flood control) to the current climate. So any change is problematic. Systems will no longer work as designed. Lives and property will be at risk and billions and billions of dollars will need to be spent on rebuilding systems.

I have examined the literature on benefits and damages from climate change. It is possible that a few degrees of warming can yield net market benefits, particularly to agriculture. But, there will be large inequities in who gains and who loses. In addition, there will be substantial harm to ecosystems and global biodiversity.

Furthermore, we are well on a path to many degrees of warming. That level or warming will by all estimates result in net losses.

We have to get our emissions of greenhouse gases under control and address adaptation to the climate change that is already happening and will continue.

Sent by Joel B. Smith | 10:46 AM ET | 05-31-2007

I was absolutely aghast at Michael Griffin's statements. To state flippantly that we do not know whether human-induced warming will be good or bad for the environment flys in the face of the 2007 IPCC report and many analyses of the impact of warming on sites of human habitation. Forest fires in, and early runoff from, the northern Cascades and Rockies are likely impacts. These are not good for us or the plants and animals that cannot move fast enough to adapt.
Additionally, the recent focus on human space flights to the moon and Mars, in my opinion, is a huge waste of funds. These missions will dilute funds from sensible mapping missions of earth. I'm sorry I didn't hear Griffin's response to the defunding of the soil moisture mapper, or Landsat for that matter. There is much work to be done on earth from space. It may not seem sexy, but mapping soil loss, crop changes, and habitat movement really could engage the students and their taxpaying parents.

Sent by Dr. Larry N. Smith | 10:55 AM ET | 05-31-2007

If we are to assume that Michael Griffin with his avowed "free speech" speaks not only for himself but for the current administration, his question of "which human beings . . . are to be accorded the privilege of deciding" our climate conditions is clearly disingenuous. If, as he says elsewhere in the interview, current global warming is a biproduct of human activity, it is his friends in the Whitehouse and their friends in the oil industry who perpetuate this warming. Yes, we are arrogant to think we can control natural global cycles of climate change, but the real arrogance resides with the few U.S. leaders who are currently deciding to ignore our responsibility to undo our own damage in the face of worldwide recognition of that damage.

Sent by David Leighou | 12:09 PM ET | 05-31-2007

Lovely hatchet job on Dr. Griffin, folks, especially the noon-time follow up where you asked everyone except Dr. Griffin why he said it. Obviously, having your interviewer actually ask him would have been completely unprofessional. This is exactly the way totalitarian agitprop is supposed to work and I'm reassured to note that you have acquired great skill at it. I also note that NPR is an advocate of fair and balanced reporting: along with your ready acceptance of the necessity for war in Iraq, your uncritical and enthusiastic acceptance of everything labeled "global warming" demonstrates that you are ready to snooze over stories from both sides of the political fence.

I do question your need for public funding, however, or at least, for very much. I know any number of eight year olds who could have done a better job of interviewing guests than I heard today. Sadly, it seems that MadTV is becoming a better source of insightful and critical reporting than NPR can manage. Like everyone who feeds at the public trough, you're too fat and comfortable. I'll bet NPR would quickly improve if you folks lay awake at night wondering how you were going to make the studio rent at the end of the month.

mjs

Sent by Mike | 12:58 PM ET | 05-31-2007

Scientists rally around Griffin, see:

http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/3967

See also: Griffin sensible on GW

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/05/boss-of-nasa-sensible-on-global-warming.html

Sent by Lubos Motl | 5:26 PM ET | 06-01-2007

I think the "Global Warming Debate" is swipe at our mad rush forward in technology and it will only get faster and faster. The ludites, the nannies, and the conformists are oozing out in every sector possible. They don't want to enjoin the future.

The problem with their approach is there is no feasable way to stop global warming other than killing off 5.8 billion people and going back to the cave.

If we halt our appetite for new technology and development when the world reaches 10 billion people, and it will, life on Earth will be worse than Hell.

There will be energy wars raging everywhere. You will have access to electricity for 6 hours once a week.

Let's take a serious look at this because this is the REAL CHEESE. The world is projected to need double the amount of power in use today by the year 2050. It will need 4X today's output by 2100 and by 2150 it will require, not desire, require 8X the amount of energy in use today. Without that added output world progress will freeze up and fall apart. There will be chaos and war. The end will come with you or your descendants huddled in a dark shelter with no hope of help arriving.

Putting a little solar power panel on your roof is not going to equal the vast amounts of energy we will require by 2050, 2100, and 2150. We need thousands of new high energy resources, or the end will come. We need Moon-based solar power, huge orbital-solar power stations, nuclear power, coal power, and we need to nail down fusion power once and for all, or you can kiss everything you know and understand today goodbye.

How's that for a scary senario. I think it beats "Global Warming" hands down.

Sent by Bode Bliss | 12:58 AM ET | 06-02-2007

The Theology of Anthropocentric Global Warming is on its last legs. In 5-10 years - after the Oil and Energy industries have exhausted their ability to profit off of subsidies, "Global Cooling" will be all the rage.

It too will rule the classrooms and Airwaves until Al Gore does a full-feature movie. As with all things, Gore's involvement will bring the kiss of death.

Kudos to Mr. Griffin.

Sent by Bruno | 1:06 AM ET | 06-02-2007

but man can change the climate... if it gets to warm we can just use nuclear winter to cancel it out (tribute to futurama)

Sent by tom | 3:26 AM ET | 06-02-2007

I believe this interview and Bush's statement to the press the same day are a choreographed attempt to release contradictory statements about climate change in order to maintain doubt and confusion about this complex issue.

Links to a recent climate change article:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/danger_point.html
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/2287/2007/acp-7-2287-2007.pdf

Sent by Cathy Bechtoldt | 7:34 AM ET | 06-02-2007

My responses to Griffin's quote follow in parenthesis.
"First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change," (As burning fossil fuels by human beings brought about GW I don't understand how he can say this with a straight face) as millions of years of history have shown,(As a scientist, he knows that the relationship of burning fossil fuels is what has caused GW) "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." (This ignores the fact that if we abdicate the responsibility to address GW, we're allowing the Energy billionaires to continue to make that decision for us.)
"That's a rather arrogant position for people to take."
(Yes, and he's arrogant enough to take a position which ignores the devastation GW causes to 3rd world nations, and arrogant enough to think that human beings are greater than the natural order that has sustained us prior to the industrial revolution. Science needs to consider and balance the ethical side of what it offers with the long term benefits. Perhaps scientists could focus on how to bring peace on earth and then tackle Griffin's evaluation of GW. Right now, the question is should we allow the rich and greedy to continue to use fossil fuels for their personal benefit while the rest of us wonder what world our children will be facing as a result of our decisions or lack of them. I'm not a Luddite, but I do recognize that science has also brought us the opportunity to be: terrorized by the threat of nuclear warfare,prey to identity theft, victims of world-wide diseases in a matter of days. The natural order has brought us air, water, food, babies, love, the beauty of nature, and the ability to think in ways that humanity can express itself with love and compassion for all.
Science and ethics need a great marriage to bring forth responsible ideas.

Sent by Anne | 12:29 PM ET | 06-03-2007

This claim about optimal climate is beyond credulity. If you are to take optimal as alive, we know that at current temperature and GHG levels we certainly are; however, with such a rapid exponential growth in such things, can we say Venus?

Sent by Dr. N. Ambleur | 1:32 PM ET | 06-03-2007

This scientist does not agree with the anthropogenic global warming religion of Al Gore and the mostly liberal others. I support Dr. Griffin in his global warming remarks on N.P.R. I damned sure support his right to an opinion, which the climate change alarmists like Hansen seem to think he can't or shouldn't have. Science demands different points of view and skeptical opinions to keep it honest and accurate. Hansen et al are the arrogant ones by stating that only they and the other "warmies" are correct about climate change. Some don't even have the balls to give their names!

Sent by Randy Kitsmiller, Environmental Chemist | 6:53 PM ET | 06-03-2007

All's you'd have to do is genetically alter grass to sequester carbon in it's root system. Problem solved!

Sent by Bode Bliss | 8:05 PM ET | 06-03-2007

Why accept the ranting of an administration toady like Griffin? The GOP tactic of reframing direct questions is just the great strawman argument - - - answering the question nobody asked.

I suggest those who hear these tactics used simply note that the speaker is hearing voices no one else hears and accord his answer the respect you would give to a babbling idiot, drunk or insane individual.

If the press were to follow the same principle the GOP adheres to, they would deny the evasive politicians access to the media if they won't answer direct questions. This would seem ominously heavy-handed. However, when the politicians exploit media access to the government, no one seems worried.

Mr. Griffin leads us to believe that global warming is an assumption only and then says that the assumption means there is an ideal climate. After putting these ideas in the enemy's camp, he calls them arrogant and therefore worthy only of ridicule. If he would have stuck to the question that increasing global temperatures are biologically harmful and dangerous to humanity, he could have garnered respect for staying on topic.

Is it so hard for those with no regard for accepted global environmental safety principles to stay on topic in a reasonable debate? Since the press is afraid to ask, who will?

Sent by H Kitt | 8:56 PM ET | 06-03-2007

Global warming is here, that's a fact. The cause (or blame) of global warming is what is in question. The Earth as we know it - the Earth that we humans live in - Earth's atmosphere - is a relatively very, very thin film that covers our globe. Consider a cross section of the Earth - if the diameter of the earth (roughly 12,800 km)was 50 cm in diameter the thinkness of the atmosphere we humans can successfully live in (11 km) is then less than 0.04 cm (400 micrometers) thick. So end the debate and start fixing the problem - Earth's human populations from industrialized nations are filling up the atmosphere at a higher rate that the Earth can naturally clean-up. NASA is bias in the debate, since one extraterrestrial space mission fills Earth's atmosphere, from Earth's surface to orbit, with many times the amount of pollution from one airliner. Consider the source of your information and what that source has to gain or lose monetarily, from their expert position.

Sent by K Luchini | 12:22 AM ET | 06-04-2007

Last time I checked, science is not religion. A little skepticism is a part of the scientific process.

True believers in GW need to understand that science is contradictory even at its best.

Should you drink coffee, or not. What causes the common cold? How do we keep our kids from getting fat? Should I wear sunscreen when I go to the beach?

When science can answer the easy questions with consistent answers, I will look to science to answer the tough ones.

Remember, the earth is always either warming up or cooling off. In my area, the record high temperatures were usually set in the early 1900's. What was going on then? If not for our human contribution through fossil fuel burning, would the earth be cooling?

People who are so ready to blame GW for every flood, or drought should also recall that floods and droughts have been around longer than hydrocarbon fuels. Some of the historical floods and droughts were much worse than the current conditions.

Sent by Geno | 2:01 AM ET | 06-04-2007

Here is Griffin's bio (http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/griffin_bio.html) read carefully and ask yourself if he can comment with credibility on climate change. As 'real climate scientist' I would suggest he can't.

Regardless of whether you believe climate change is induced or enhanced by man, the simple fact is IT IS HAPPENING. No one denies this - not even Griffin. So our climate is warming and changing. If the world were not so HEAVILY depended on today climate, I would say that climate change is no big deal. BUT we are extremely dependent upon our current climate: Where we plant crops, where we get our water, where our cities and industry are are all dependent upon our climate not changing. The big threat is sea level rise as this can change the landscape of the earth on a massive scale. The big risk is that sea level rise generally accelerates as it occurs. Over the past 30 years the sea level has risen about 4 inches. In future years we expect this rate to increase. Part of the increase in due to further warming, but the biggest part is due to destabilizing Antarctic ice that gets "lifted" as sea level rise. If you follow what I'm saying you'll see that sea level rise begets more sea level rise. Why is this a risk? Because we don't know how fast this may accelerate. Most climate scientists (whose jobs aren't dependent on the US Gov) believe there is a real possibility that significant (10 or 20 feet) sea level rise could occur over the next 50 or 100 years. Is this a risk we can ignore comfortably?

Sent by M Gibbas | 2:34 AM ET | 06-04-2007

Great to see honest folks speaking out.
It is amazing how folks just keep talking about a false premise/issue of CO2 causing climate change. They are both poorly educated and misled by a party line or economic criminals.

Current incompetent stories regarding CO2 Causing Climate Change are a fraud.

When you base anything on a false premise everything else that follows is false. CO2 causing climate change IS a false premise.

Consensus is NOT science. Educate, inform yourself, take a 9th grade science class.

Additional information http://www.InteliOrg.com/co2_climate_change.html

Stop listening to folks that have a financial interest in the subject. Unfortunately, many have learned to spin information, thusly have become intellectually and academically dishonest.

Information Vetting: I have no financial interest in this subject.

Sent by Dr Coles | 10:43 AM ET | 06-04-2007

oh well.....who cares? I'm off to have a beer and some chicken wings. Glad you literati have all the answers. :-)

Sent by Mark | 11:39 AM ET | 06-04-2007

I am curious as to why Griffin did not point out that Venus, Mars and Jupiter at least are experiencing global warming to the same degree as Earth, and we are not on those planets, yet.

Also, as to why spend money on space projects as opposed to bettering everyone's condition on earth, arguably a space program can improve everyone's position, especially if we can move to other planets. Dare to dream.

As to why spend the money on NASA's agenda versus improving conditions on the planet, it is not their job to focus inward, but if budget is a concern, how about we get rid of NPR and spend that money on the planet? It's a start.

Sent by Mike | 12:55 PM ET | 06-04-2007

Wow, I can't believe that even the majority of comments by NPR listeners understand that Dr. Michael Griffin's comments are VERY reasonable and educated. (And I am surprised that NPR is gracious enough to post these listeners comments)

Although Dr. Griffin is not a climate scientists a look at his resume indicates he is probably more qualified by traditional measures to comment on global warming that about 99.99 percent of all Americans. But apparently in the minds of some, that doesn't give him the 'right' to opine publicly on the subject. And although there are frequent criticisms of Dr. Griffin, I have not seen ANY names of climatologists cited. Instead only political pundits like Daily Kos. How come anytime I hear global warming collaborators present their ideas they rarely present scientists names with quotes. And when I hear scientists who believe that humans are responsible for GW, they speak with far less certainty than the global warming collaborators suggest.

Energy companies obviously make money selling oil and coal but only because people want it. We can stop using fossil fuels any time we want by outlawing it or taxing it to death. People choose fossil fuels because they believe it benefits them in both quantity and quality of life. There is more consensus among economists that there are costs to prematurely force change in our energy mix than among GW scientists that humans are responsible. The collaborators are merely obfusticating these costs by blaming auto and energy companies because they don't want to have to convince people that the cost will be worth the benefit. (or even have a discussion about how high the costs will be)

Companies invest huge amounts of money (and make considerable profits) frequently on things like HDTVs and pharmaceutical drugs. They will be happy to make money on non-fossil fuels when the economics makes sense. But they understand the costs and it's not their job to set political policy. If you believe in human caused GW, you should support carbon taxes. If you don't, you want to win an debate not solve what you believe is a problem.

Sent by Matt | 8:47 AM ET | 06-07-2007