Griffin Altered NASA Mission Statement To Remove Global Warming Reference
Griffin Altered NASA Mission Statement To Remove Global Warming Reference
Last week, NPR asked NASA administrator Michael Griffin said that while he was “aware that global warming exists,” he wasn’t sure whether it “is a longterm concern or not.” Griffin said he is “not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.”
Griffin subsequently clarified his remarks, stating that protecting the earth against global warming is not in the agency’s mission statement:
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.”
But from 2002-2006, it was. Part of NASA’s mission was to “protect our home planet“:
To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers … as only NASA can.
In Feb. 2006, the mission statement was “quietly altered” to remove the phrase “to understand and protect our home planet.” Even a year ago, NASA scientists predicted that because of the mission statement revision, there would “be far less incentive to pursue projects to improve understanding of terrestrial problems like climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions.” Top NASA climatologist James Hansen called the deletion “a shocking loss,” because he had “been using the phrase since December 2005 to justify speaking out about the dangers of global warming.”
In contrast to the previous mission statement, the 2006 revision “was made at NASA headquarters without consulting the agency’s 19,000 employees or informing them ahead of time.” Instead, it was submitted as part of the 2006 Earth Science Research and Analysis budget, which is a joint product of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget and the NASA Administrator, Michael Griffin.
Therefore, Griffin is right. Unfortunately, protecting the earth against climate change is not part of NASA’s mission anymore. But that’s because he changed the mission.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
44 Responses to “Griffin Altered NASA Mission Statement To Remove Global Warming Reference”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Close our eyes and will go away!!! - NOT!
June 4th, 2007 at 3:33 pmOkay. There’s that picture of GDumbya and Griffin again. Please. Will someone tell me which one is Mutt and which one is Jeff.
p.s. — “you’re doing a great job, Griffy”
June 4th, 2007 at 3:33 pmI think it’s a tragic commentary on our species that individuals like Michael Griffin and his boss have such a large effect on our planet.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:35 pmthe consensus (if there ever was one) is falling apart
June 4th, 2007 at 3:40 pmLooks like a picture of two closet case queers to me.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:42 pmMr. Griffin’s job is to mingle in space. Leave “global warming” to the EPA, libbies.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:42 pmLeave Global Warming to the EPA?
No good. That agency is also run by incompetent Chimpy cronies.
The only solution is to kick ALL Repukes out in 08.
Every last one of them.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:45 pmCompTROLL is another Repuke closet case troll.
He gets a hardon thinking about Chimpy naked.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:46 pmCompTROLLER V-1,
As long as you leave it alone, we’ll all be better off. Don’t worry, the adults will take care of it for you.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:48 pmThe natural resources of the world are being depleted, this cannot be denied and although most Americans have enough to keep them alive is not the case around the worl as thousands of people go to bed hungry each night the issue of global poverty is more serious than ever and it can be changed, there are strategies in place to end global poverty. Thus far $300 billion has been spent on the war in Iraq and less than half of aid from the United States goes to the poorest countries where people earn less than $2 a day. The United States agreed to support the UN’s Millennium Development Goals, a plan to end global poverty by 2015, however according to the Borgen Project the funding to support the end of malnutrition and starvation is under funded by $19 billion annually. Congress needs to become aware of these important issues and make a change.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:51 pmIt’s these subtle changes made by Bush that will be our downfall. In a normal administration there would be somebody with some integrity that would stand up to this change in wording but not with the Bush White House. Nobody is qualified for their position so they don’t stand up for what’s right or wrong.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:51 pmGriffin claims to uncertain whether global warming is a long-term concern? If the United States were proceed with limited nuclear strikes upon selected targets, they could forward the Neocon agenda at the same time that a mild form of a nuclear winter might at least temporarily counteract global warming. Granted, this probably sounds to many like the script for a cheap sci-fi/horror flick, however, the same could have been said seven years ago if someone had predicted some of the events that have occurred since that time. Need an example? David Ray Griffin (probably no relation to Michael), describes the official government-sponsored conspiracy theory of what occurred on 9/11 as follows: “…19 hijackers with box-cutters defeated the most sophisticated defense system in history. Hani Hanjour, who could barely fly a Piper Cub, flew an astounding trajectory to crash Flight 77 into the Pentagon, the most well-protected building on earth. Other hijacker pilots, by flying planes into two buildings of the World Trade Center, cause three of them to collapse straight down, totally, and at virtually free-fall speed…” Unfortunately, the preceding represents only one of all too many illustrative examples.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:52 pmGriffin is wrong on this, of course, but I suspect that overall he’s a pretty good guy. Unlike O’Keefe before him, Griffin is an engineer who’s actually interested in space travel. My guess is, he really wants NASA to return to the moon and send people to Mars…and he’s willing to go along with Bush’s stupid nonsense if it’ll get those missions funded.
Not the noblest approach, but Werner von Braun had some skeletons in his closet, too.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:53 pmThe EPA doesn’t operate multi-million dollar satellites we sent aloft for the expressed purpose of monitoring the earth’s atmosphere.
Leave government to the libbies, con-man.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:54 pmDude, I’ve flown out of Logan.
“The most sophisticated defense system in history” it ain’t.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:56 pmAh, yes - Gotta love that “quietly altered” mission statement along with the signing statements, deliberate refusal to follow our constitution, federal laws, UN laws, NATO laws or any laws of decency. Their actions speak much louder than their words.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:56 pmps. Did you notice the drool escaping their mouths?
I wonder how much Griffen paid for photo-op with W. Did he have to pay the 25 grand or was he assessed the 5 grand bargain basement price?
June 4th, 2007 at 4:03 pmIn Feb. 2006, the mission statement was “quietly altered†to remove the phrase “to understand and protect our home planet.â€
Oh, this is soooo typical of the planted stooges (political appointees –AKA compassionate conservatives/religious right-wingnuts) that Bush infected in our fields of science. These stooges’ purpose, along with Bush, is to destory our nation; and if possible, the world, as well.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:03 pmIm sorry but Griffin might be a good guy, but he did the absolute thing wrong here. This lowering of the bar that has happened due to the enormity of the corruption in this administrations existence has to be addressed! It was unethical of him to do that, it was cowardly (not telling the actual employees who ARE NASA!) He might be a smart, educated man but this has a devastating impact on the study of global warming and ALL earth related issues. The bar has been lowered to where people are accepting a much lower standard of what we expect from the people that are working for US. We have got to demand a high ethical standard and competence!
June 4th, 2007 at 4:06 pmI agree, we have to look carefully at ALL depts. because they have manipulated and corrupted them all.
How about them wanting to reduce the threat to the spotted owl by shooting bard owls trying to say that that was impacting spotted owls, NOT loss of habitat! It’s unbelievable and disgusting.
Griffin has set an incredibly bad example and should be FIRED.
While it’s true that from 2002 to 2006 NASA’s mission statement included the phrase “To Understand and Protect our Home Planet”, it is not correct, as the original posting suggests, that mitigating climate change was once part of NASA’s charge. The “Understand and Protect” verbiage was added by former NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe, a Cheney acolyte who was no more interested in fighting climate change than, well, Dick Cheney. In fact, under O’Keefe, Earth Science — long a seperate division with it’s own $1.2 billion budget — was merged with Space Science to better conceal the fact that its budget was being raided. Ironically, one of Griffin’s first actions as NASA chief was to make Earth Science a separate division again and increase its budget.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:07 pmYou know, the beautiful thing about climate change? It’s not going to affect me, it’s going to affect your children. Also, if the change becomes so severe that it wipes out humanity, the Earth has demonstrated time and again that mass extinctions happen yet life moves on.
Relax. Get some sunglasses, some sunscreen, and make yourself a nice drink - it’s not your problem.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:08 pmIF global warming is not an issue, why bother to remove the phrase “…protect our home planetâ€?? Any way you spin it, removing/changing that phrase makes no sense.”
June 4th, 2007 at 4:12 pmLet’s see. Mars has atmospheric temperatures rising faster than earths. Planting trees either doesn’t impact global warming or actually can increase temperatures due to albedo. Ocean temperatures may not be linked to hurricane activity. These are all papers that have been published in major journals over the past month or so, and all fly in the face of “global warming politics.”
The atmosphere is a chaotic system. If the education system actually devoted any attention to physical science education, perhaps this would be better known. Unfortunately, hysteria brings funding, and the more hysteria the more money.
If you really want to stop global warming (instead of global cooling we were worried about in the 70s), the government should fund shaded parking in Tucson. The reflectivity of shades would be much higher than asphalt, limiting a great deal of energy that way. Further energy and emissions would be saved by cars having less need for AC. That would really be doing something.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:21 pm#21,
The current rate of increase in new cases of skin cancer is the highest its ever been and is out pacing virtually all other cancers and diseases.
You say that the climate crisis won’t affect us or our children.
I say, pass the hookah.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:24 pmI know this may come as a major shock to Mr “I’m Just Another Bush Lackey” Griffin, but he himself has admitted that NASA DOES need to study global warming. Reread his “denial statement” closely.
“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.â€
All the hack has admitted is that NASA can’t make “policy” to combat global warming, not that the agency can’t STUDY global warming. Has anyone actually argued that NASA is supposed to set “policy” on global warming?
June 4th, 2007 at 4:31 pmSimply dropping “protect” from the “mission statement” doesn’t absolve NASA of its responsibility to STUDY aspects that affect our ability to UNDERSTAND “our home planet”. And part of “understanding our home planet” would entail studying the effects of global warming.
Of course, Mr Griffin might want to explain just why NASA participated in the Jamestown 400th anniversary celebrations. How does the “mission statement” fit in with a 400-year-old English colonial expedition? Mr Griffin may also want to wipe NASA’s website while he’s at it since the current homepage, in the “Life on Earth” section, lists things like “Satellites Tackle Pollution Problems” and “Checking the Health of Greenland’s Ice Sheet”–the latter article specifically uses the phrase “global climate change” in its first paragraph.
oh man. these people really need to stop sucking so much.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:34 pm#24 - you must not have read many of my posts before this - I’m being facetious.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:38 pm#23 Well, Matt in Tuscon, that is quite a little parade of debunked talking points you just put up there.
I like that part about how the atmosphere is a chaotic system. Sounds real sciency. What’s your point? Chaotic systems are somehow immune to change even when subjected to strong forcing? You seem to be implying as much. But precisely the opposite is true. Chaotic systems can undergo dramatic changes in response to small changes in forcing. But you don’t know sh*t about chaotic systems, do you Matt?
Never mind chaos, though. You don’t even grasp basic logic. You say that because Mars’ climate is changing, then AGW cannot be happening on earth. But this argument implies that there can be one and only one cause of climate change anywhere in the universe. This is a preposterously stupid claim.
June 4th, 2007 at 5:07 pmMatt in Tucson: Let’s see. Mars has atmospheric temperatures rising faster than earths. Planting trees either doesn’t impact global warming or actually can increase temperatures due to albedo. Ocean temperatures may not be linked to hurricane activity. These are all papers that have been published in major journals over the past month or so, and all fly in the face of “global warming politics.â€
Um, excuse me, but you don’t know WTF you’re writing. Mars has no significant “atmosphere” to affect its temperature. (Mars’ atmospheric pressure, at its greatest, is not much more than 1% of Earth’s.) What atmosphere it does have actually precludes it from maintaining a stable global temperature which is the baseline for global warming. (The Martian atmosphere is exceedingly thin which precludes it from storing solar heat and its atmospheric pressure–as mentioned–is incredibly low. Also, the Martian soil has a low thermal inertia which keeps the surface from holding much heat.)
June 4th, 2007 at 5:18 pmAs for ocean temperatures and hurricanes, please explain why hurricanes (or typhoons or monsoons) START in tropical waters if not for the much warmer waters. From the weatherwizkids website (just to make it as easy as possible for you to understand)
“Hurricanes only form over really warm ocean water of 80°F or warmer.”
Just to put this in a bit of perspective for you, right now the Gulf of Mexico’s water temperature at Panama City, FL is 76.3 degrees. Panama City is just north of the 30 North Parallel, and is more than 450 miles north of the Tropic of Cancer–the northernmost point to define “tropical”. If the water along the Gulf’s northernmost coastline is 76 degrees–and this is just the start of June–imagine how much warmer the water is in the tropics where hurricanes normally form.
Now, there are times when hurricanes may form north of the Tropic of Cancer, but only when the water temperature is over 80 degrees–something not too unlikely in the mid-Atlantic during the height of summer.
” …the government should fund shaded parking in Tucson.”
Comment by Matt in Tucson
Is the paint on your BMW starting to fade to soon?
June 4th, 2007 at 5:20 pmYou should have gotten the white instead of the red, like the knowledgable people who live here…
“The atmosphere is a chaotic system.”
And, therefore, having a great deal of additional energy in that system won’t cause any problems.
Because chaotic systems are known for spreading additional energy smoothly and evenly througout the system, without producing any violent fluctuations or dramatic alterations in localized areas.
Phew! And to think, I was worried there for a minute.
June 4th, 2007 at 5:23 pm#23 Matt in Tuscon must be an Asst. Lecturer in Agricuture at Eastern New Mexico Bible College.
Good try.
kip
June 4th, 2007 at 5:24 pmJob Description:
Asst. Lecturer in Agriculture, ENM Bible College
Must be able to recite at least 3 bible verses pertaining to the sowing of seeds and/or tares.
June 4th, 2007 at 6:37 pmMust be able to determine if it is raining, or not.
Must have a working knowledge of procuring food from vending machines.
Must be able to give the appearance of being celibate.
Must not be seen in Roswell under any circumstances.
He’s on a “heck of a mission” to support the oil industry. Not a NASA mission. I bet, when he resigns he has a $1m job all lined up selling oil pumps to the shiekdom.
June 4th, 2007 at 7:52 pmNot to worry…NASA is focusing on getting us all to another planet since we are destroying EARTH. I suppose they will build some fascist, christian and republicans only (ok some Israelis may come aboard for the right price) community….I think I will just stay back and die here…anything is better than living with republicans and christian fascists
June 4th, 2007 at 8:12 pmMichael Griffin just returned the statement to what it should be. The previous formulation was responsible for the fact that pseudoscientific crap represented by people like Hansen was spreading even in NASA. But before that, mission statements had no environmentalist jargon in them. See for example this 1958 statement:
http://www.eadshome.com/NASAmission.htm
June 4th, 2007 at 8:26 pmWhat a dickhead this Michael Griffin is!
June 5th, 2007 at 12:05 am“In Feb. 2006, the mission statement was “quietly altered†to remove the phrase “to understand and protect our home planet.—
But national security should include planetary security.
No planet also means no America.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:54 amSo many people are missing the boat on this whole sorted mess. Politicians are not interested in changing the world in order to “help you.†They intend to leave mass production in place and continue to burn oil as the bible commands. Everyone here seems to admit that the source of global warming is burning fossil fuel. This is the same as admitting that global warming is caused by human activity. In the end the most accurate statement would be that “humans cause global warming.â€
Since there are going to be 7 with a “B†Billion of us soon enough, those that think clearly realize that the energy, water and dietary needs of a population of that number will and has exceeded the available energy, food and water supply. Faced with the true magnitude of the situation daily the politicians present us a show and in that show one side points at the other while Rome (that would be the citizens) burns and suffers.
Eventually the majority of us will simply die. Consider the truth that based upon the science of global warming humans are responsible. If we all have to give up “high’ living the wealthy would lose many of their prized possessions. Bill Gates main home in Washington is over 25,000 sq ft and it is quite common to see homes in excess of 4.000 sq ft around the nation. It isn’t a matter of right or wrong since it is a matter of quality of life.
Poor people are forced to double up on everything and are the possessors of all of the hand me down junk from the middle class and wealthy. This “carbon tax†idea allows the upper class wage class warfare on all the rest. They (the upper class) don’t intend to live like animals (the poor) and they intend to pay in order to destroy food, water, land and energy competitors.
They want to kill off (I know there is a word for this) as much of the excess population as possible and then sterilize the rest. I remember reading about meetings that go back to Margret Thatcher and various parts of the UN where the subject was a group who were coined as “The Useless Eaters†by Henry Kissinger. The dividing point between them and us would be “class†and this is the sorry state of affairs we live in.
You want to change the world and assuming the science you choose to believe is the correct science you intend to believe that a carbon tax is fair. This tax is not on a sliding scale basis and the wealthy thought it up along with building the Hydrogen Bomb. If you really believed that humans cause global warming then the only possible solution is ceasing all mass production, banning all fossil fuel use and killing as many people as possible since their entire existence represents food, water, land and energy competition at any energy level.
Life is about the phrase, “Survival of the fittest!†In that concept you must be mentally fit too and realize that the only thing separating people of today and cave men comes from Psalms 104:14, 15 of the Bible that reads…
104:14 He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth;
104:15 And wine [that] maketh glad the heart of man, [and] oil to make [his] face to shine, and bread [which] strengtheneth man’s heart.
That “shine†is not a literal glow or sheen from smearing olive oil on his face but is the smile of happiness. Yes happiness = oil! No oil = sadness!
If it is true that humans cause global warming by our behaviors than the simple fix is to de-populate the Earth and stop burning fossil fuel and burning wood would be OK so long as the entire global population did not exceed 1 Billion. People would need to return to tribal living and any overall government would likely be a feudal system.
June 5th, 2007 at 8:49 amWhat would you expect from a
June 5th, 2007 at 1:16 pmBush appointee?
If this is the case, why doesn’t Congress threaten to eliminate those monies in the NASA budget that can be attributed to pay for this directive and pass it along to the states by way of submission of competitive proposals, along with, if they have any jurisidiction in this area, that part of Griff in’s salary that can be attributed to this part of his oversight duties?
June 5th, 2007 at 1:48 pmThey also need to get going on serious Whistleblower legislation by holding hearing after hearing about how this administration and its supporters in Congress are attempting to get around the law in their secretive autocratic government. If the mainstream media won’t do it’s job in exposing the lack of veracity within this administration, members of Congress need to keep making record after record of sworn testimony that can’t be hidden by presidential directive and force the public to finally deal with these issues and their representatives in Washington.
Something tells me that Griffin won’t be leading the 2009 Gaea project.
I hope we can stand two more years of Bush.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:07 pmI wonder if jobless Tim Griffin, who tried to be the permanent U.S. Attorney in Arkansas, is related to Michael Griffin at NASA.
You know how Bush likes to keep things in the family.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:30 pmThis comment is being entirely misconstrued. He said that basically global warming has positive and negative effects, and that all the media on global warming has been highlighting the negative effects. Who is to say that this current climate is the best climate for the Earth?
June 11th, 2007 at 5:52 pm