There is serious evidence that instead of overstating the problem, they may be understating it. Warming may be happening a lot faster than people think, and the effects could hit us a lot sooner. That’s because it takes years and years to gather the data. The data are then put through a rigorous scientific process. So by the time things get published and any conclusions can be drawn, reality has moved ahead of the observations.

Critics talk about this as if it’s a conspiracy by radical scientists. To what end? And why? I’ve never understood that.

You mean those NASA scientist that are continually having to reduce the amount of warming because when audited their numbers don’t add up? Or how about Dr. Mike Mann of the Hockey Stick fame who’s calculations were audited by the national academy of sciences and found to be “Mathematically Incorrect”.

You mean those guys?

None of this is really surprising if you’ve been following what this administration has been doing for the last seven years. It’s really the level of detail that is here. It is simply atrocious.

Hey Keith, do you get it yet?

Pot, Kettle, Black, Keith of the sit down and shut up or we’ll ban you fame.

I’m so sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but I told you so.

Welcome to America, Mr. Michael Griffin, of NASA.

America is wonderful, no?

GRIFFIN: Let us speak openly and honestly about the problems we face in carrying out our nation’s space program. Over the course of my career in this business, I have often been disheartened by the large number of diverse “entrepreneurs” in search of NASA funding who place their self interests over the greater good of the aerospace community. They do not respect the priorities set out for NASA by our duly-elected stakeholders in the White House and Congress, or even the priorities of their own respective science communities in National Academy decadal surveys. …. If we wish a better reality for tomorrow, we as a community must police this behavior; those who engage in it must be made to feel, and be, unwelcome in the community at large.

COWING: Mike Griffin’s statements at the Goddard Memorial Symposium last week would seem to utterly contradict what NASA put forth in the communications policy issued in March 2006. And just who does Mike Griffin think he is by advocating that anyone should “police” speech in a country where such speech is protected by the Constitution – under any possible circumstance as it relates to NASA? Moreover, what possible moral or legal authority does he have to suggest that “those who engage in it must be made to feel, and be, unwelcome in the community at large”? The fact that a Presidential appointee would say things like this in public – on the record – is troubling.

Hear, hear Keith.

Perhaps it is the cynic in me, but I believe it is well known by experienced insiders that NASA Administrator’s (as well as other government leaders) do what they can to punish those who disagree with them. They typically do as much as they think they can get away with, regardless of policy.

Mike’s failing here is that he is so public about his intent to punish those who don’t agree with his priorities. I am quite certain that nobody inside NASA, who cares about their job, argues with Griffin on his ESAS choice. The existing NASA policy is a fig leaf.

IMO, it is a sign of desperation that Griffin is trying to shut down debate/discussion by those who don’t work for him. He is clearly on the defensive. First we had the STA speech in January defending ESAS, then the AAAS speech attacking scientists, and now his AAS/Goddard speech. Then add his punitive attacks in the media that were clearly directed at the ULA (even though the criticism against ESAS is being driven by many others).

Considering that Griffin will be gone in less than a year, I believe that a LOT of people will come out of the woodwork in or around January 2009.

– Al

“Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”

T. Keith Glennan, president of Case Western University & associated with NACA Lewis (now Glenn) Research Center, was NASA’s first administrator, appointed by Eisenhower. Webb was its second, appointed by Kennedy.

But every one of your points remains valid. NACA’s former director, Hugh Dryden (as “scientist” as they come), was made Deputy Administrator the day NASA was created, and (I believe…trusting memory here) remained in that position under Webb.

Anonymous,

Consider that the creation of NASA was a pure political act — a political response to Sputnik. Consider that its defining program (Apollo) was a pure political response to the Soviet Union’s declaration that it was going to bury us. The tapes of JFK talking about the “why” of Apollo leave no doubt.

Consider that NASA’s first Administrator — James Webb — was not a scientist or engineer. He was an A-1 political operator, who understood politics, and what the politicians wanted.

There has never been a time when NASA has not been swamped by politics.

In its entire history, science has NEVER been a primary purpose at NASA. Science has been, and always will be, a secondary by-product at best.

Now we are all space advocates here. We all love science. However, we get into real trouble when we fool ourselves about why politicians write the big checks. This is a consistent blind spot of almost all scientists, and engineers, who work for NASA.

Which is why I have been arguing that we need a James Webb — a non-scientists/non-engineer — as the Administrator of NASA.

We need somebody who KNOWS what the politicians really want as Administrator — and who also happens to be a space advocate. The Deputy Administrator should be the scientist/engineer, and the NASA Chief Operating Officer.

FWIW,

– Al

“Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”

Actually, I’m saying that NASA has been swamped by politics. Obama’s right to say that inspiration isn’t fueling our space program as much any more. I think the esteemed Mr. Marburger is right to say that we should be concerned about the economy. However, I don’t think these kinds of needs should be the only ones, or the first ones driving our venture into the solar system. But, what can I say? I’m a man of science first. I view politics through the lens of discovery primarily. Call me political novice, because I probably am. Thank you.
(By the way, I’m not confessing any political affiliations in this post I’d rather keep that information to myself.)