What the head of NASA really said, and Hansen should be fired?

The Head of NASA (Michael Griffin) apparently didn't say:

"there is no scientific consensus on man-made, catastrophic global warming"

That was by a fellow named: Robert Ferguson.

The full quote is:

"NASA's top administrator, Michael Griffin, speaking on NPR radio made some refreshingly sensible comments about the present global warming scare," said Robert Ferguson, Director of the Science and Public Policy Institute. "Many rationalist scientists agree with him, clearly demonstrating there is no scientific consensus on man-made, catastrophic global warming," said Ferguson.

Source:  http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/wire_id/3967

What Griffin really said is:

Morning Edition, May 31, 2007 · NASA administrator Michael Griffin defends the space agency's programs, including plans for a permanent moon base and manned missions to Mars. He also says that while NASA studies climate change, the agency has no authorization to "take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another."
The following are excerpts from Griffin's conversation with Steve Inskeep, edited for clarity:
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.

Source:  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10571499

The comments were discussed on PhysicsForum here:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-172321.html

- or -

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=172321

What Hansen said in response (from ABC news):

Griffin's comments immediately drew stunned reaction from James Hansen, NASA's top climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
"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.
"It's unbelievable," said Hansen. "I thought he had been misquoted. It's so unbelievable."
Several other NASA climate scientists contacted by ABC News echoed Hansen's comments, saying an overwhelming majority of their colleagues believe global warming is an urgent issue that society should be addressing. The scientists asked that their names not be used because they did not want to jeopardize their careers.
Griffin's comments also angered scientists outside of NASA.

Source:  http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3229696&page=1

Of course, as per normal, Hansen was quickly "censored" by NPR - in normal fashion, this is what he said:

On why NASA Administrator Griffin would downplay the significance of global warming:
"I have no idea. It's an amazing coincidence that it's at the same time as our paper just came out and the President's statements, but I just found it very surprising."
With 1.7 million listeners Day to Day, NPR's fastest-growing new program, is a weekday, one-hour newsmagazine produced at NPR West studios in Culver City, Calif., in collaboration with Slate.com and hosted by Alex Chadwick and Madeleine Brand.

-NPR-

MADELEINE BRAND: We turn now to NASA's top climate change scientist, Jim Hansen. Welcome to the program.
JAMES HANSEN: Glad to be here.
MS. BRAND: Well, we have just heard about President Bush's new proposal on climate change, and what do you think about it?
DR. HANSEN: Well, I think it's very timely to get together and start to do something. Time is really running out. As we discussed in a paper that we just brought out – the press release came out yesterday – we are at a tipping point. If we don't begin to make some changes in our emissions, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we're going to get some really large climate changes.
MS. BRAND: Earlier today on NPR's Morning Edition, your boss, NASA administrator Michael Griffin, said something about global climate change that raised a few eyebrows. Let's listen.
MICHAEL GRIFFIN: 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 the 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.
MS. BRAND: And when you heard those comments, what did you think?
DR. HANSEN: I almost fell off my chair. It's remarkably uninformed. Civilization developed with – it's the current climate. And we have got an infrastructure along coastlines that assumes that our climate is going to stay roughly what it is now. But if we are going to simply allow human emissions to greatly change climate, I think that is extremely arrogant of our species. It will be devastating to many other species on the planet, not to mention many of our own species.
MS. BRAND: Well, NASA is involved in a lot of research on global climate change. And so what does it mean that the head of NASA is kind of doubting that it's a problem?
DR. HANSEN: I still hope that his remarks are perhaps out of context. On the surface, they appear to be markedly uninformed about the status of our understanding, because, as our paper pointed out, if we continue on the path we're on, we will be producing a different planet, which will have devastating implications for many people on the planet.
MS. BRAND: Has he read your paper?
DR. HANSEN: Apparently not.
MS. BRAND: Will you be asking him, in the light of his comments, to read it and to have a conversation with you about it?
DR. HANSEN: Well, I don't normally bump into him at my level in NASA, but if I have the opportunity, I certainly would like to talk to him about it.
MS. BRAND: What kind of signals do you get from your bosses, from the people there at NASA in terms of your research? Are you directed in anyway as to where you should point your research?
DR. HANSEN: Well, the signals that we have got really come from the research support, which has decreased dramatically in the last couple of years. There was a 30-percent cut last year in the research-and-analysis budget for earth science. And that is the money that funds climate research in NASA.
MS. BRAND: A 30-percent cut. What does that translate into?
DR. HANSEN: Well, that is a huge cut. That is decimating the program.
MS. BRAND: Decimating the program. So are there key areas that you think are vital research that you just can't afford to research right now?
DR. HANSEN: Well, the biggest problem is the measurements that need to be made. Now, those – the budget for satellites has not been cut as much, but it's been cut to the point where we cannot afford as many satellite missions, and measurements are the foundation of understanding.
MS. BRAND: Why do you think Michael Griffin would make comments such as these, kind of sort of downplaying the significance of global warming?
DR. HANSEN: I have no idea. It's an amazing coincidence that it's at the same time as our paper just came out and the President's statements, but I just found it very surprising.
MS. BRAND: Jim Hansen. Thank you for joining us.
DR. HANSEN: Sure. It's good to be here. Thanks.
MS. BRAND: Jim Hansen is the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. He is NASA's top climate scientist.
(END)

Source:  http://www.npr.org/about/press/2007/053107.hansen.html

Further discussion from the time:

Thursday, May 31st, 2007 8:20 PM
Oh, this is rich.
Apparently pissing off his colleagues, NASA administrator Michael Griffin, when interviewed by NPR's Steve Inskeep said he didn't believe global warming was an issue that we have to "wrestle with".
The pissing off part as reported by ABC:
Griffin's comments immediately drew stunned reaction from James Hansen, NASA's top climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
"It's an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement," Hansen told ABC News. "It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change."
Par for the course for ABC to zone in on that.
The exact excerpt in the interview is as follows:
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.
I love that last point. I have always felt that the whole issue that WE as humans are in a position to even change the climate to this level is ALSO an arrogant position.
Griffin was defending some people's assertions that NASA is not spending enough money to study global climate change. Griffin says:
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.
Frankly? Nor are we as a people.
-The Editor

Source:  http://www.discussglobalwarming.com/blog/2007/05/31/nasa-chief-global-warming-not-a-problem/

Further discussion featuring Hansen's "Partner in Crime"

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?

Source:  http://www.zianet.com/ehusman/weblog/2007/06/griffin-commits-heresy.html

 Can we find additional substantiation for the Hansen / Schmidt quotes?

If I went on wide open public media and even if I went around the office saying "My boss is ignorant and misinformed"

I would be fired, the same day, on the spot.  As would most folks.

Hansen can say "creation should be preserved" as often as he likes when speaking in private or public, he can say anything he wants while OFF the clock,

HOWEVER

There is NO SUCH THING as freedom of speech" in the work place.

If the quotes are true and prove out,

HANSEN SHOULD BE FIRED