On Jun 4, 5:52 pm, Andrew Feeney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know nothing about Griffin's politics or scientific views, so this is just
> a hunch.
>
> But is it possible that he was ducking on the science -- or maybe even
> covering for AGW commentators like Hansen within his agency -- by expressing
> outrageous views that he thought would be likely to please Cheney & Inhoffe,
> etc.?
I don't think there was any political calculus. I think he just shot
off his mouth, made a mistake.
He put out this statement after the inteview:
"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."
Here is Cheney on global warming:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2898539&page=1
>
> I think it's intriguing that Griffin managed to be as anti-interventionist
> as anti-Green as possible, as close to endorsing the fossil fuel lobby as
> possible, yet without denying the scientifi case for climate change.
>
> Michael Tobis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The impact of a new climate equilibrium may well be a net positive,
> though the losers in such a scenario may feel robbed by the winners.
>
> That's entirely beside the point. We are moving into sustained rates
> of change rarely if ever seen in nature, even in the rather
> climatically erratic recent million years. It is indeed outlandish to
> suggest that this is a good idea.
>
> Economists seem to think derivatives (they call them "marginal rates")
> are some subtlety unique to themselves, but the slightest exposure to
> physical science makes clear the whole physical universe seems to be
> glued together with first and second order differential equations.
>
> In the present case, whether one equilibrium is slightly better than
> another is of little consequence as the rate of disruption continues
> to accelerate.
>
> Heiko, Griffin is severely wrong and to the extent you agree with him
> you are wrong too.
>
> The difference is that he represents an agency which should have
> expertise on the matter. I would hope that if you were in a position
> of similar responsibility you would take into account the opinions of
> the experts who were in your agency before making such a sweeping
> statement.
>
> mt
>
> ---------------------------------
> You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck
> in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
