Talk:Michael D. Griffin

The epidemic of "flacks" aggressively editing Wiki bios

Griffin is not merely a scientist but a lifelong Republican hack. You couldn't have more political jobs in science than he has held. SDI? Show me some success. In-Q-Tel? Enough said. NASA? They found cracks in the foam insulation today, 48 hours after Griffin would have launched for the July 4th photo-op.

Consider Reaverdrop's use of flowery adjectives and colorful verbs. These are not "sourced," unless you consider a press release a "source."

I hope you're being paid well for this, Reaverdrop, else you have no pride.

Black Monday

Seems a major witch hunt is under way at NASA... how do we reflect that ?82.120.116.121 20:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

STOP TRYING TO IMPRESS THE READER WITH PEACOCK WORDS

STOP SHOVING OPINIONS DOWN THE READER'S THROAT.

By explicity praising Dr. Griffin, this article shames Wikipedia. Encyclopedias are about FACTS, not FACTUAL IMPRESSIONS. DO NOT evaluate the worth or value of specific achievements. DO NOT compare parallel information to make a point, qualitative comparisons are ALWAYS POV. DO NOT stack the data to present your opinion. STOP WRITING POV!

I like Mike Griffin as much as the next guy. One of my professors is an acquaintance of Griffin and has related to me his own favorable impressions. But PLEASE leave these opinions out of encyclopedias.

This is fucking pathetic. Too many Wikipedia bios read like Newsweek articles rather than Britannica entries. At least Newsweek doesn't pretend to be a reference. User:Xmnemonic

No kidding - this sounds like it was pulled off his NASA bio page, and then made even more positive. And wasn't he head of the SDI program for a while? Grahamdubya 13:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This was not very specific, but I edited to remove POV-vio statements and include more critical points of view. There are still some quotations from other experts about him that are quite positive, but those are factual reports of statements by those people, who are independent of NASA and the government, which are only fairly representative - newspaper articles about him have included positive comments by a lot more people. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 21:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Resolved

Can the Neutrality Disputed header be removed? There's no discussion going on at all. Are those who disputed the article's content satisfied now? Honestly, questioning the NPOV merely because a "lifelong Republican hack" wasn't shown in a negative light is lugubrious. The author of the article deserves better than this. --Curmudgeonry 23:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I vote "no," and, of course, you are preposterous to "summarize" the dispute as you do. The request is not for negativity, but for critical accuracy.

Reaverdrop recently edited out mention of SDI's technical failures under Griffin, to give you an idea.

"Part owner of a private plane"? How about "owner of a home with a beautifully manicured lawn"?

• It is imperative to always sign your comments on the talk page, unidentified user, otherwise no-one knows who is objecting to what and for what reason. From a casual perusal of the article, it seems neither overly sycophantic nor particularly poorly-sourced; do the technical minutiae of the SDI program really belong in Griffin's bio page, or rather on the SDI page itself? Readers can follow the hyperlink if they want to know the ins and outs of that program. I second the removal of the "disputed" tag. Also, for those who propose significant changes to this page, I suggest a calmer and more "Zen" approach, there is no need for swearing and bad language on this talk page. User:Jaganath 17:59, 04 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree on the motion to remove the neutrality disputed banner. It's now been 4 months since the original suggestion, and the discussion page still offers nothing enlightening to the reader on the nature of the dispute. Mbelisle 18:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree as well and have removed it after some rework. Antonrojo 02:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Climate Change

How come there is nothing about climate change? Being the leader of the American's top sience agency there should be something said about the direction he wants the agency to take. Hasn't be lowered the priority of climate science?

If you have quotable material on this topic, feel free to add it. -- Northgrove 15:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that we have quotable material, should there be a section about his competense. His argument was so bad, yes there is global warming, yes it's caused by man but let's see what will happen. It appears he has no experience with live sciences or climiate science, all of his back ground appears to be engineering related.. Can someone please defend him and explain why this isn't just another case of appoiting another incompetent ideolog by the Bush administration..

Right, because appointing an engineer to head an agency responsible for building things is so very irrational. <eyeroll> Khaighle (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between engineering and science. This is clearing an example of a engineer commenting about life science. The point is he has no background to make such a comment. It's a comment of ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.7.167 (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I heard Mr. Griffin say on NPR that we should not try to prevent global warming, because it might be advantageous. he did not present any evidence that this was the case. This seems a very strange view for the administrator of one of the agencies responsible for monitoring environmental change. Obviously land in Siberia might be more habitable, but the disruptive effect on equatorial and coastal areas, which are much more densely populated, would be extraordinarily damaing. Surely such an opinion requires better justificaton. Danwoodard (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Unpublished statements on climate change

The following is text deleted from the article, as there are no "published" sources to back up the claims. E-Wire articles don't count as acceptable sources, as E-Wire is only a press release agency, and the articles are not published in a third-party news source. --Amit 18:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

---

He did not feel he should apologize for expressing his opinions.

Prominent climate scientists have also supported and rallied behind Dr. Griffen and his comments. See Follow up, below.

The mainstream media did it's best to bury comments from prominent scientists from around the world who supported and applauded Dr. Griffin's comments. It was however reported on E-Wire online.[1]

Some of the scientists and their comments from the above link:

Dr. Walter Starck, an Australian marine scientist, "Griffin makes an important distinction between the scientific findings of climate change and dramatic predictions of catastrophic consequences accompanied by policy demands. The former can be evaluated by its evidence, but; the latter rest only on assertions and claims to authority. Alternate predictions of benefits from projected changes have been proposed with comparable authority and plausibility. For example, unless one chooses to define the Little Ice Age as "normal" and "optimal" the net effect of any warming has only been beneficial and any anthropogenic contribution very small indeed. Dramatic predictions of imminent disaster have a near perfect record of failure. Griffin's note of caution in the escalating concern over climate change deserves sober consideration.

Another Australian, who testified before a Senate panel last year, Professor Robert_M._Carter, observed, "My main reaction to Michael Griffin is to congratulate him on his clear-sightedness, not to mention his courage in speaking out on such a controversial topic."

Dr. Tim_Ball, a Canadian climatologist, responded: "Griffin's statement is sensible because it allows time for the testing of the man-made global warming hypothesis to continue as it should."

"I certainly support Griffin's comments," said William_Kininmonth_(meteorologist), a former head of the Australian National Climate Centre. "Not only is it speculative to claim that humans can in any way influence the course of climate but it is arrogant to suggest that today's climate is getting worse than it has been in the past. For example, who would prefer to return to pre-industrial conditions as they were during the Little Ice Age? Frost Fairs were common on many rivers of Europe and the London diarist John Evelyn records that in 1683-84 the Thames River froze from late December to early February. Conditions were terrible with men and cattle perishing and the seas locked with ice such that no vessels could stir out or come in. The fowls, fish and exotic plants and greens were universally perishing. Food and fuel were exceptionally dear and coal smoke hung so thickly that one could scarcely see across the street and one could scarcely breathe."

Kansas geologist, Lee Gerhard added, "Griffin's statement focuses on the hubris that affects much of public policy. It is great to know that someone out there besides geologists understands that humans do not dominate earth's dynamic systems.

Said Ross_McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, "Claims of major, impending catastrophe are speculative and go far beyond what has been credibly established by researchers to date. Hence Griffin's view is not at all controversial or out of step with available evidence, and he should be commended for having the courage to say it. The fact that it took courage, however, points to the deeper problem that questioning the catastrophic propaganda we hear so much is now considered politically incorrect."

Dr. Pat Michaels at the University of Virginia agrees: "NASA Administrator Michael Griffin's statement about whether or not it is in fact a "problem" is supported by a scientific literature that his employee, James Hansen, appears to ignore. It is well-known that much of the Eurasian arctic was between 4 and 12 degrees (F) warmer than modern temperatures for much of the 6,000 years between 3,000 and 9,000 years ago, and that such warming was caused by a massive intrusion of warm Atlantic water into the arctic. Given that the only way it can get there is to flow east of Greenland, Mr. Hansen's well-publicized fears that a massive amount of Greenland's ice will fall into the ocean in the next 100 years is mere science fiction. It is ironic that today President Bush appears to have given in to Hansen's hysteria rather than to the calm reason of NASA Administrator Griffin.

Finally, Harvard University physicist Lubos_Motl praised Griffin's climate comments, calling them "sensible." On his public blog, Motl said he applauds Michael Griffin and encourages him to act as "a self-confident boss of a highly prestigious institution." "I have always believed that the people who actually work with hard sciences and technology simply shouldn't buy a cheap and soft pseudoscientific propaganda such as the 'fight against climate change,'" Motl added.

BLP policy vio

I removed this passage

In 1993, Michael Griffin wrote a letter criticizing problems in the design review process for the International Space Station, problems that the Clinton Administration and then-NASA Administrator Dan Goldin ignored, resulting in design changes that set the International Space Station program back several years.

and I think it should stay out of the article until there's a source. It's certainly interesting and relevant material, if it can be supported in reliable sources. I, for one, would like to hear more. But it's contentious, and unsourced, and WP:BLP is quite clear on such matters: that kind of thing should be deleted. Yakushima (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Golf

I'm a little surprised that no popular description of Michael Griffin that I have seen, including the wikipedia article, has mentioned that he is an exceptionally skilled golfer, or at least was back when I knew him. Maybe it's irrelevant, but wikipedia biographical descriptions I have seen usually include a "personal life" section. "Griff" and I had a very cordial friendship when we were both at JPL, and he once demonstrated to me his golf swing in the living room of his apartment, to my surprise, since as a child, I was not allowed to swing a baseball bat inside the house. When I mentioned that his display seemed somewhat daring, he indicated that he would not have done it if he weren't certain of his control. After he left JPL, I never saw him again, but during his years as NASA Administrator I hoped that I might fortuitously cross paths with him someday on the Caltech campus so that I could ask him "What's your handicap these days? I mean besides George Bush." I suppose that some form of documentation would be needed for inclusion of this topic in wikipedia, and unfortunately I don't know of any, but perhaps some investigative journalism could turn some up.

Uncited SDI/Brilliant Pebbles Involvement

It seems that a number of references to Griffin’s involvement in the SDI program were added by a single user a few months ago. None of them are cited, and a cursory search wasn’t able to find anything to corroborate it. I suspect these regencies should be deleted. 2607:FEA8:1FE1:F100:C991:B30:F05:CDB8 (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)