Griffin commits heresy

I happened to walk out of the shower as these comments were being broadcast for the first time:

It has been mentioned that NASA is not spending as much money as it could to study climate change -- global warming -- from space. Are you concerned about 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 longterm concern or not, I can't say.

Do you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?

I have no doubt 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.

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?

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 first thought was, -- wow, a reasonable, measured answer, who is this guy? I soon found out that the speaker was NASA director Michael Griffin, and that the reaction was virulent.

Before looking at some of that reaction, however, let's consider a few key points:

• He believes that anthropogenic (man-made) climate change is real. He believes that anthropogenic (man-made) climate change is real.
• He doesn't know whether the current climate is the optimum climate. He doesn't say it is, he doesn't say it isn't. The burden of proof is on those who claim that we need to spend billions or perhaps trillions on maintaining the current climate. The burden is rarely placed on those who would have to prove a negative.
• He believes that anthropogenic (man-made) climate change is real.
• He is mostly reacting against claims that NASA should be spending more to oppose climate change despite the fact that there is no legislation directing them to do so. Study yes, battle no. This is a legal issue, not a scientific issue.
• He believes that anthropogenic (man-made) climate change is real.

So, he has stipulated to the AGW history, but thinks caution is in order when making decisions for the future, and besides, it is illegal for him to attempt to battle it. And did I mention that he believes ... ah, so I have.

What would be said about an individual -- especially a businessman -- who simply takes matters into his own hands and starts making decisions that will affect generations to come? Wouldn't they be labeled asocial, hyperindividualist, selfish, greedy, and/or arrogant? What would be said about someone who hijacked a government agency for said purposes? The words "rogue" and "fascist" come to mind. And what would be said about people who encourage such behavior? Now I'm thinking "populist" and "demagogue". But I suppose it all depends on whether the person is breaking the law to do something you happen to favor, and whether you believe in things like "precedent" or allowing the opposition to occasionally win an election.

So what was the reaction to this? NPR published no fewer than two responses (here and here) and ABC news also chimed in here.

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

Hansen believes Griffin's comments fly in the face of well-established scientific knowledge that hundreds of NASA scientists have contributed to.

Note that Hansen never responds to the actual comments, instead submitting arguments from intimidation (only ignorant people say that) and ad populum (hundreds of scientists ...). Yet it is Hansen who is held up as the model of scientific integrity. To be fair in this as in all reported stories, they could have neglected to print his more thoughtful reflections, opting instead for the juiciest quotes; I've had such experiences myself. I'll continue searching for the retractions.

Another sample:

"I was shocked by the statement and I think the administrator ought to resign. I don't see how he can be the effective leader of a science agency if he doesn't understand the threat of global warming," said Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton University atmospheric scientist and lead author of some of the latest reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. The international body, made up of thousands of climate scientists is considered one of the most authoritative bodies on global warming.

Is he actually saying that any bureaucrat who thinks that he ought to constrain his agency's actions to what is legally permissible ought to resign for thinking just that? The last sentence in the quoted selection was put there I suppose for readers who don't know what IPCC is, but it should have been likewise noted that Griffin accepts their version of history. Does agreeing with someone on their facts, but disagreement with them on their conjectures, constitute "not understanding them"? Perhaps we ought to re-open the debate about heterogeneity with respect to the exact science of forecasting?

Another sample:

Last year, many NASA scientists were upset when reports surfaced that the agency had quietly deleted the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet" from the NASA mission statement. The scientists believe research on issues like climate change will suffer as NASA shifts priorities toward exploration missions to the moon and Mars.

"Earth has always been central to NASA's science," Hansen said.

Yes, and grants to study Earth have always been central to the well-being of NASA's scientists. Nothing brings grant money faster than emergencies - real or fabricated. As an interesting side-note, it used to be the standard left-wing position that NASA was a waste of resources that should be spent to solve poverty and hunger here on Earth; that apparently has been reversed.

The reactions to the statement around the blogosphere are mostly in line with the commenters' predispositions. If you believe in AGW, then Griffin is is either a shill or an impostor scientist. But I have seen few attempts to address his actual points. If you don't believe in AGW, there is considerable enthusiasm for a supposed repudiation of the theory.

As to his qualifications, I'd say that his academic background is as impeccable as one could have for his position (cribbed from his NASA bio):

• bachelor's degree in Physics from Johns Hopkins University;
  
• master's degrees in aerospace science from Catholic University of America; electrical engineering from the University of Southern California; applied physics from Johns Hopkins University; Civil Engineering from George Washington University
• Ph.D. in aerospace engineering from the University of Maryland
• adjunct professor at the University of Maryland, Johns Hopkins University, and George Washington University, where he taught courses in spacecraft design, applied mathematics, guidance and navigation, compressible flow, computational fluid dynamics, spacecraft attitude control, astrodynamics and introductory aerospace engineering
• lead author of more than two dozen technical papers, as well as the textbook, "Space Vehicle Design."
• registered professional engineer in Maryland and California
• a master's degree in business administration from Loyola College
• certified flight instructor with instrument and multiengine ratings
• chief engineer and as associate administrator for Exploration at NASA
• deputy for technology at the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization

Can the tables be reversed? Many of the commenters have little background in the sciences relevant to preventing the change, and offer no support to their assertions. Take for example this clip from an otherwise relatively balanced Live Science report:

Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies responded via email to a request from LiveScience to comment on the NASA chief's remarks to NPR: "Griffin's comments seem surprisingly naive. We are not in a situation where we are shopping around for an ideal climate, but that we have adapted to the climate we have, and that therefore large changes to it are not likely to be beneficial."

Can Schmidt produce the relevant social, economic, and biological data that allows him to make such a sweeping claim? In fact, the climate has been both colder and hotter than the current climate. The pro-AGW crowd has now settled on the trump-card claim that the Medieval Warming Period was localized; yes, it was, to the Northern hemisphere, where most of the world's population lived and lives. That was beneficial. Even the Stern Review last year made the point that a 1 degree increase is likely to result in more, not less, food. But cooling is likely to be worse in terms of producing food, and Ice Ages have come about quite spontaneously in the past. Which is the scenario to be avoided most? What are the "likely" risks of each?

The LiveScience report also contained this bit:

Anthony Kreindler, a spokesman for Environmental Defense, an environmental rights organization, today agreed in part with NASA's clarification: "It's not within NASA's responsibility to make policy," he said.

But he disagreed with Griffin's earlier remarks.

"To suggest that we can't do anything to fix the climate change problem is a direct [refutation of recent IPCC findings]," he told LiveScience. "I think it's just ignoring the scientific consensus."

So, a rare note of the truth of Griffin's comments, followed by the required rebuttal, and then off to the claims that it has been proven that climate change can be averted. Note that the linked suggestions for averting climate change, which many seem to refer to as certainties, are complemented by many instances of words like, "should", "could", "if", "might", and so on. They also make some glaring errors, like saying that

The report says governments could lower economic costs if low-carbon technologies are promoted via carbon taxes or "cap-and-trade'' systems like Europe's, whereby industry is allocated emissions quotas, which can then be traded among more efficient and less efficient companies.

Well, perhaps they could if Europe's cap and trade scheme weren't largely perceived as a failure (a government failure designed to address an ostensibly market failure, though it is arguably a government failure - subsidizing automobiles - from an earlier period). The LATimes article here and Washington Post article here cover the EU carbon market failure:

Skeptics, though, point to the troubles of the cap-and-trade system the European Union has used since 2005 to reduce carbon emissions. Under pressure from industry, European governments gave away too many credits to polluters; the result was that the price of the credits collapsed, undermining the incentive to cut emissions or use cleaner fuels. (Some analysts say the cost fell so far it was cheaper for European utilities to buy credits and burn coal than to burn cleaner natural gas.) A second round of mandated emission reductions scheduled for next year could ameliorate the problem, but at the least, the European experience suggests that designing a successful cap and trade is an enormously complex undertaking which may require some trial and error before it works. [emphasis added - not quite the slam dunk previously claimed, eh?]

Other commenters attempted balance, but then went on to explain why they thought that bureaucrats ought to aggressively advocate for their own departments and agendas.

One says,

I do agree that NASA's charter does include regulatory aspects that would dictate CO2 emissions. However, the Administrator's comments were a classic example of "passive agressive" leadership. In denial that global warming is a serious issue, Griffin grudgingly agrees to carry out research without any real enthusiasm. Imagine instead if he actually welcomed the challenge of grappling with climate change as a motivating force for his agency, and a national priority... what a difference that would be!

Have they ever thought about the consequences of having dozens or hundreds of aggressively defended government agencies? No, I suppose that they want just the programs they want to be expanded while all the agencies of which they disapprove to passively accept defunding and failure. Unfortunately, the other side of the aisle sees things the other way 'round.

Even the normally reserved Prometheus blog reacted with incredulity and the implication that we must give weight only to the bad things that might happen should the climate get warmer.

[Aside: The Mises Institute posting mentioned in the comments on that is mostly tedious. I didn't find myself enthusiastically interested in the comments of either side.]

And what about the other counter-argument to Griffin, that he is a shill? While this is an obvious ad hominem, I agree that it is a concern, but not for the intended reasons. Prometheus author Kevin Vranes wishes that Steve Inskeep had asked follow-up questions:

The next question could have been: 'were you picked for this job because of this opinion? Before offering you the post did Bush Administration officials give you a litmus test that included your views on climate change?'

Well, duh, big red truck! But stand by for the lack of such curiosity when the next president applies the opposite litmus test. We'd all like to believe that the President, Congress, and Civil Service picks the best qualified scientists, but the reality is that the most politically adept scientists will succeed no matter who occupies the White House. They may be scientifically qualified as a matter of course or accident (Mr. Griffin, for example), but they will assuredly be politically adept. This should be a matter of concern for anyone who fears a police-state. Unfortunately, we have too many people who want a police state and fear only the other party getting their hands on it.

A lot of ink and electrons are being spilled on the observation that such reactions indicate near-religious fervor on the part of AGW believers. While there are a few, and despite the tongue-in-cheek title, I don't think that corresponds to the majority of us (yeah, us). I am more concerned about the people who believe firmly in the power of the state to solve problems and whose catechism changed from Socialism to Environmentalism as the former Soviet states collapsed. I maintain that they are too willing to accept uncritically anything that supports that doctrine, whether it be physical, social, or political science. I am also afraid that they are willing to scrap any checks on government agencies to achieve those goals. Then, when the other side gets the reins (or is it reigns?), they are surprised by the abuse of that power.

Oh, no, time for me to get out my tinfoil hat? I don't think so. The AGW true believers are willing to shove aside anything that looks like a restraint on NASA or any agency willing to accept their version of the future and their idea of the appropriate discount rate. That means control of just a few small issues, like economic production, distribution, transportation, energy, space, farming, and population. Does that seem ambitious? Have I left anything out?