By June 7, 2007Global Warming

Only by a full recantation and acceptance of the warm embrace of manmade climate change can NASA Administrator Mike Griffin return to the fold.

The head of NASA told scientists and engineers that he regrets airing his personal views about global warming during a recent radio interview, according to a video of the meeting obtained by The Associated Press.

NASA administrator Michael Griffin said in the closed-door meeting Monday at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena that “unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical and it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it.”

“All I can really do is apologize to all you guys … I feel badly that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this,” he said.

Griffin’s sin? An interview on NPR — more here — where he said mankind might be a little arrogant in claiming to know the world’s optimal temperature.

“I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists,” Griffin said on NPR. “I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.”

Anyway, glad Griffin is back on the right side of the issue. True repentance warms the heart.

Oh, yes, meanwhile:

Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists — the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects — and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.

That’s Lawrence Solomon of Canada’s Financial Post, reviewing six months of in-depth reporting and interviews with leading scientists. There is no consensus. At most, there’s a preponderance of scientific opinion.

Our view is that policy decisions that may very well reshape the entire economy — especially if regulators and big-government advocates win the day — should be made on the basis of informed, honest and open discussions. Not witchhunts, inquisitions and the silencing of debate.

(Hat tip: Planet Gore.)

Leave a Reply