NASA Administrator M. Griffin Questions Need to Combat GW

[White_Male_Canada]

NASA's Top Official Questions Global Warming
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin Questions Need to Combat Warming

In an interview broadcast this morning on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" program, Griffin was asked by NPR's Steve Inskeep whether he is concerned about global warming.

"I have no doubt that a trend of warming exists," Griffin told Inskeep. "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," Griffin said. "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."

[LG]

NASA's Top Official Questions Global Warming
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin Questions Need to Combat Warming

In an interview broadcast this morning on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" program, Griffin was asked by NPR's Steve Inskeep whether he is concerned about global warming.

"I have no doubt that a trend of warming exists," Griffin told Inskeep. "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," Griffin said. "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."

Some excerpts from said interview:

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.

Interesting. So now you've changed your tune WMC? What about the cosmic rays? What about the natural cycles? What about all those other things you were claiming were to blame?

I would be very keen to know what your position is, exactly, on climate change. First you say it's not happening. Then you say it's not man-made. Then you say it's man-made but not controllable. And now you're saying it's a good thing? Make up your fucking mind for fuck's sake, man!

And don't give me any shit about the text being "one man's opinion" because you just referred Trish to it in another thread with the purpose of defeating her argument (unsuccessfully, again)

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.

Also interesting. I'm not sure what he is saying. Most other countries have agreed to Kyoto. Evidently they seem to believe that this is the optimum temperature or at least that any change may be for the worse. So is he saying that the human beings who should decide are the Americans? They are, after all, the ones who haven't signed Kyoto, who haven't done anything to control car emissions, who haven't tried to limit the use of crude oil.

Basically he is saying that the temperatures now may not be optimal, but either way, only the wealthy countries should be entitled to decide, despite the fact that they will be the least affected. I would say that that is an even more arrogant position for people to take.

[trish]

Griffin is apparently taking no stand on whether our climate change is anthropogenic. However, he has a lot of gall to suggest that shift that will destroy cities, reconfigure the political map and transmute bread baskets into deserts could be just be for the best. Well perhaps after a millennium, after the climate stabilizes, civilization might optimally readjust. But considering the overhead, the cost of destruction and political instability to be paid now, it would be foolish to suggest that climate change is just the optimal course of action.

[White_Male_Canada]

I would be very keen to know what your position is, exactly, on climate change. First you say it's not happening. Then you say it's not man-made. Then you say it's man-made but not controllable. And now you're saying it's a good thing? Make up your fucking mind for fuck's sake, man! And don't give me any shit about the text being "one man's opinion" because you just referred Trish to it in another thread with the purpose of defeating her argument.

It is Griffin`s opinion. I agree with his view on what is or is not the perfect mean temperature. The Medieval warm trend saw life flourish so there it would be irrational to argue that colder temperatures are preferable.
On his agreeing with the IPCC, stating that it`s 90% likely man is responsible for all the warming, that`s been proven false and I don`t have to go into detail about proxy ice core data being underestimated by at least 55ppm, and error filled CGMs.



Most other countries have agreed to Kyoto. Evidently they seem to believe that this is the optimum temperature or at least that any change may be for the worse. So is he saying that the human beings who should decide are the Americans? They are, after all, the ones who haven't signed Kyoto… Basically he is saying that the temperatures now may not be optimal, but either way, only the wealthy countries should be entitled to decide, despite the fact that they will be the least affected. I would say that that is an even more arrogant position for people to take.

Alot of countries have not signed onto Kyoto, specifically two of the biggest in terms of population and economic growth. Secondly, it is the absolute height of arrogance for Earth worshippers to suggest that they and only they know what the perfect mean temperature should be and can absolutely control the Earth`s thermostat.

Your one of the Earth worshippers lg, so has the average temperature on earth ever been warmer than it's been in our lifetime? Next, what is the optimal average temperature of our planet? And break that down by hemisphere and continent.

[trish]

Secondly, it is the absolute height of arrogance for Earth worshippers to suggest that they and only they know what the perfect mean temperature should be

i repeat: it takes a lot of gall to suggest that shift that will destroy cities, reconfigure the political map and transmute bread baskets into deserts could be just be for the best. Well perhaps after a millennium, after the climate stabilizes, civilization might optimally readjust. But considering the overhead, the cost of destruction and political instability to be paid now, it would be foolish to suggest that climate change is just the optimal course of action.

[LG]

I would be very keen to know what your position is, exactly, on climate change. First you say it's not happening. Then you say it's not man-made. Then you say it's man-made but not controllable. And now you're saying it's a good thing? Make up your fucking mind for fuck's sake, man! And don't give me any shit about the text being "one man's opinion" because you just referred Trish to it in another thread with the purpose of defeating her argument.

It is Griffin`s opinion. I agree with his view on what is or is not the perfect mean temperature. The Medieval warm trend saw life flourish so there it would be irrational to argue that colder temperatures are preferable.
On his agreeing with the IPCC, stating that it`s 90% likely man is responsible for all the warming, that`s been proven false and I don`t have to go into detail about proxy ice core data being underestimated by at least 55ppm, and error filled CGMs.



Most other countries have agreed to Kyoto. Evidently they seem to believe that this is the optimum temperature or at least that any change may be for the worse. So is he saying that the human beings who should decide are the Americans? They are, after all, the ones who haven't signed Kyoto… Basically he is saying that the temperatures now may not be optimal, but either way, only the wealthy countries should be entitled to decide, despite the fact that they will be the least affected. I would say that that is an even more arrogant position for people to take.

Alot of countries have not signed onto Kyoto, specifically two of the biggest in terms of population and economic growth. Secondly, it is the absolute height of arrogance for Earth worshippers to suggest that they and only they know what the perfect mean temperature should be and can absolutely control the Earth`s thermostat.

Your one of the Earth worshippers lg, so has the average temperature on earth ever been warmer than it's been in our lifetime? Next, what is the optimal average temperature of our planet? And break that down by hemisphere and continent.

I am not an earth worshiper, I am merely a man with a scientific background a sound grasp of facts and logic.

Firstly, you're confusing me. You've gone from- climate change isn't real, to climate change is good for us. Hell, let's pump more CO2s out there! Why don't you yammer on a little more as well? The methane will do us good.

As for the optimal temperature, who the fuck knows? I am sure you do not. Things seem to be working out okay for us now, don't they? Id' say temperatures now are pretty good (if it ain't broke, they say...). Higher global temperatures could mean a lower quality of life in some tropical and sub tropical regions of the third world, but obviously you don't care. Higher global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels which could be catastrophic to coastal regions, but obviously you don't give a rat's ass.

Kyoto has some 170 signatories who have ratified the convention, including all nations in the EU. The countries that haven't signed to Kyoto have not taken their position to help humanity, but merely to save money. They obviously don't give a rat's ass either because the countries that will suffer are the poorer countries. So, in order to save money, they are putting others at risk while claiming to be doing it for the better good. And that, to me, smacks of arrogance.

I find it very interesting that you only selectively agree with Griffin. Why even post his opinion? Oh, I remember, it is because you, the man with no knack of science and too much time on his hands, consider yourself a uberscientist who can put all the specialists to shame. You are the egghead to beat all other eggheads, the most knowledgeable of all, the font of all knowledge, a man of such great intellect that all the PhD holders grovel at your feet. A giant amongst men who would make Newton, Einstein and da Vinci look like preschoolers.

L-O-fucking-L, man. L-O-fucking-L...

[White_Male_Canada]

Your one of the Earth worshippers lg, so has the average temperature on earth ever been warmer than it's been in our lifetime? Next, what is the optimal average temperature of our planet? And break that down by hemisphere and continent.




As for the optimal temperature, who the fuck knows? I am sure you do not. Things seem to be working out okay for us now, don't they? Id' say temperatures now are pretty good (if it ain't broke, they say...). Higher global temperatures could mean a lower quality of life in some tropical and sub tropical regions of the third world, but obviously you don't care. Higher global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels which could be catastrophic to coastal regions, but obviously you don't give a rat's ass.

Your reply exposes you as someone who doesn`t know jack-shit. " WHo KNOWS...things SEEM ok...higher temps COULD..higher temps COULD...COULD be a CATASTROPHIC...."

What a load of personal opinion crap based on modeling scenarios that have been proven false. You don`t even know what you think is imaginary, what exists inside a computer scenario, and waht is real anymore.



Firstly, you're confusing me. You've gone from- climate change isn't real, to climate change is good for us. Hell, let's pump more CO2s out there! Why don't you yammer on a little more as well? The methane will do us good.

Get it through your think limey skull, climate changes, it always has and always will. CO2 does not drive temperature changes, man-made CO2 contributes very little. Never said climate does not change.

You`re fucked up. 8)

[LG]

Your one of the Earth worshippers lg, so has the average temperature on earth ever been warmer than it's been in our lifetime? Next, what is the optimal average temperature of our planet? And break that down by hemisphere and continent.




As for the optimal temperature, who the fuck knows? I am sure you do not. Things seem to be working out okay for us now, don't they? Id' say temperatures now are pretty good (if it ain't broke, they say...). Higher global temperatures could mean a lower quality of life in some tropical and sub tropical regions of the third world, but obviously you don't care. Higher global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels which could be catastrophic to coastal regions, but obviously you don't give a rat's ass.

Your reply exposes you as someone who doesn`t know jack-shit. " WHo KNOWS...things SEEM ok...higher temps COULD..higher temps COULD...COULD be a CATASTROPHIC...."

What a load of personal opinion crap based on modeling scenarios that have been proven false. You don`t even know what you think is imaginary, what exists inside a computer scenario, and waht is real anymore.



Firstly, you're confusing me. You've gone from- climate change isn't real, to climate change is good for us. Hell, let's pump more CO2s out there! Why don't you yammer on a little more as well? The methane will do us good.

Get it through your think limey skull, climate changes, it always has and always will. CO2 does not drive temperature changes, man-made CO2 contributes very little. Never said climate does not change.

You`re fucked up. 8)

Seven simple points to get into your skull:

1. I am neither an earth-worshiper (one 'p' in 'worshiper' by the way) nor a 'limey'.
2. Nobody knows the optimal temperature for the planet. The fact is that the earth is still pretty much in balance and we can pretty much survive so I would guess that this is a good temperature to be. I doubt you can offer a better estimate, as most of the data you pick is straight out of your ass or out of date (like the 15 year old Gallup poll you tried to pass of as a recent study).
3. My personal opinion is backed up by real science knowledge and the scientific findings and opinions of some of the best climatologists in the world. Your personal opinion is backed by Exxon-funded scientists and a few Rush-wannabees who wouldn't know science is it slapped them in the face.
4. You have misquoted Chirac at least three times and have deliberately quoted various new sources selectively.
5. You have obviously never heard of the concept of risk management
6. I'm really bored with your shit
and
7. Everyone here thinks you're a jerk.

[White_Male_Canada]

Nobody knows the optimal temperature for the planet.

Then why are you tree huggers attempting to control it ?



My personal opinion is backed up by real science knowledge and the scientific findings and opinions of some of the best climatologists in the world.

To date, no real scientist has been able to deny the U.N.`s IPCC computer models as nothing more than scenarios.



You have misquoted Chirac at least three times and have deliberately quoted various new sources selectively.

Chirac`s own words further strengthen my point.



You have obviously never heard of the concept of risk management

The risk is fabricated. Ice core proxy co2 data is undervalued by at least 55ppm. IPCC computer models are labeled as scenarios, not fact and you have yet to provide edivence to the contrary.

You`re nothing more than a modern day Lowell Ponte, who we laughed at then as we laugh at you and your chicken-little "consensus science".

[LG]

You`re nothing more than a modern day Lowell Ponte, who we laughed at then as we laugh at you and your chicken-little "consensus science".
:what
Are you mental? :screwy
Who's we again? Have you got multiple personality disorder or something? Because it ain't me the majority here are laughing at.

The consensus is: you're a schmuck.

As for the rest of your "argument", I'm not even going to bother. You've wasted too much of my time, already.

[muhmuh]

Griffin is apparently taking no stand on whether our climate change is anthropogenic. However, he has a lot of gall to suggest that shift that will destroy cities, reconfigure the political map and transmute bread baskets into deserts could be just be for the best. Well perhaps after a millennium, after the climate stabilizes, civilization might optimally readjust. But considering the overhead, the cost of destruction and political instability to be paid now, it would be foolish to suggest that climate change is just the optimal course of action.

its a matter of perspective... with your way of looking at it we should stop it by all means
but then again it would mean no more dutch caravans clogging up the autobahns... a florida thats unable to manipulate elections and england would be cut off from wales... sign me up!

[trish]

:)