Griffin Altered NASA Mission Statement To Remove Global Warming Reference

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/04/griffin-nasa-mission/

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.

[proud patriot]

1. That bastard Griffin

just another criminal for bush

[Captain Hilts]

2. This is the mentality that removed the health warnings from post 9/11 WTC summary. nt

[Tanuki]

3. Thanks for posting---this deserves to be common knowledge. K&R, n/t

[Forkboy]

4. Must be that "dry sense of humor" again.

[Benhurst]

5. NASA: just another federal agency corrupted by the Bush Crime Family.

[babylonsister]

6. We HAVE to be running out of federal agencies, no? What's left? nt

[Duppers]

7. NOT the whole agency

How about James Hansen? Remember him.

I know for a fact that many other NASA scientists are livid over Griffin's remarks last week and about the change in NASA's mission statement.

Yet, my 'NASA global warming' google search popped up one reich-leaning, dumbass site that claims "Scientists Rally Around NASA Chief After Global Warming Comments." That bullshit. The OPPOSITE of that statement is true!

For instance, quoted today at nasawatch.com:

"Today's Ask the Administrator Answer
Editor's note: The following selection is repeated - verbatim - from an ongoing "Ask the Administrator" dialog with Mike Griffin...:

Question(s): As you are no doubt aware, a recent Washington Post article entitled, 'Cutbacks Impede Climate Studies', describes Earth Science research funding cuts that impact Earth Science research. It is my understanding that many people on our home planet believe that Global Warming/Climate Change is the number 1 challenge to our survival as a species. If that is the case, then perhaps Congress should give the Agency an emergency supplement that will enable NASA to perform this important climatic change research at or beyond the current level of vigor. concern regarding global warming. What can we do as an Agency, and what plans do you have as Administrator to address this decrease in Earth Science research that may prove pivotal to the health of the planet and to our survival as a species? From: Michael Dodson, Kennedy Space Center

Response (on 31-Jan-2007): I cannot, and do not wish to, comment on what Congress ought, or ought not, to do. Regarding agency-level decisions, Earth Science is presently about 25% of our Science Mission Directorate (SMD) portfolio, and is one of four divisions. Any discipline can always use more money. I think Earth Science is getting an equitable amount.

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/06/todays_ask_the_9.html#more

More NASA employees agree with James Hansen and with Michael Dodson at Kennedy than with anything Griffin has to say. And I know for a fact that there's now a petition circulating among NASA scientists to disassociate with Griffin's statement. They fear the whole agency will be judged by the stupidity of this bush appointee.


Just thought I'd defend the agency. In '09 this idiot will be out of there and hopefully the agency can recover.