A Tale of Two NASAs

It was the best of Agencies,
It was the worst of Agencies...

There have always been two NASAs. Science NASA builds exquisite scientific instruments go to the farthest reaches of the Solar system and last ten times their design lifetimes, like the Pioneer space craft or the Mars rovers. The other NASA, which we might call bizarro NASA, or better, head-up-its-NASA, builds useless crap at immense cost, like the shuttle or the International Space Station.

Both NASAs were probably gratified when Bush replaced some bean counter with current NASA head Michael Griffin. He was a NASA veteran and a PhD (Aeronautical Engineering). Today, I would guess, science NASA is bitterly disappointed.

While driving to work this morning, I heard NPR's Steve Inskeep interview Griffin. It certainly didn't help my digestion.

Kevin Vranes of Prometheus has a transcript.

STEVE INSKEEP: One thing that’s been mentioned that NASA is perhaps not spending as much money as it could on is studying climate change, global warming, from space. Are you concerned about global warming?
MICHAEL GRIFFIN: I am aware that 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 long term concern or not, I can’t say.

MR. INSKEEP : And I just wanted to make sure that I’m clear. Do you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?

MR. GRIFFIN: I have no doubt that global -- 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.
MR. INSKEEP : 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.

MR. GRIFFIN: 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.”

My emphasis.

Kevin Vranes diagnoses the problem with this:

There are a lot of avenues Griffin could have gone down in this interview, but the one he chose seems to me be only slightly better than the worst tack he could have taken (denying outright that there is a problem). Although I don't agree, even with this statement I don't have a huge problem: "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with." But what comes next,

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.

indicates to me that Griffin has absolutely no appreciation for the risk that anthropogenic climate change poses. Risk implies both knowledge and uncertainty and if Griffin simply wanted to make a point about uncertainty I'd concede it. But instead he seems to simply cast out the severe risks that do exist in favor of some sort of fig leaf that says "we may have altered the climate but we're too arrogant if we think we should stop altering it because our alterations might be good for other people." Unbelievable.

Let's just make a note of what Griffin thought was his big mission: a permanent base on the moon and a mission to Mars. These two "missions" were scams devised by Karl Rove to divert money NASA was using for science, especially the study of the Earth and its climate.

Abstractly, I think it would be cool to have a base on the Moon, but not $300 billion to $600 billion cool. (one to two thousand dollars per American). Sending somebody to Mars is also a nice dream, but the price tag for that is a trillion dollars plus. Of course Bush never had any plan to commit the required resources - it was always BS.

Griffin, it seems, was sent to head-up head-up-its-NASA, and to feed its hungry contractors. Science NASA is rightfully pissed.

Eli Rabett reports that premier NASA climate scientist James Hansen is unhappy:

Jim Hansen had some calming thoughts

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

Jim, evidently is in a serious FU mood.