NASA's chief happy declarations about global warming

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Just 2 days ago I was listening to an interview to NASA's Chief Michael Griffin, who after a question regarding global warming answered the following:

I have no doubt that global -- 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 just me or this is the most stupid answer you could hear from a supposed scientist in a position of responsibility? Sure, the climate change in the past century is less than a blip from a geological perspective but can you ignore so blatantly the potential human cost of any kind of climate change?

For more commentary you can look at the NPR blog here, also there is a note on the wiki on the subject.

[ivor]

Trillions of dollars of property and infrastructure in the water along with 90% of Earth's species extinct is clearly not a problem. 

[Griffin NoName]

This man is clearly extremely humble since I suspect he may be one of the humans who would be unable to adapt to severe climate change.

But I wonder if he has children? Perhaps they have been genetically selected for adaptability to extreme climates and possibly furnished with gills, long tails, and a few other useful "features". After all, as one of the world's scientists, he probably has good access to cutting edge research.

If not, one has to admire a hiuman who recognises homo sapiens may be expendable.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Oh, I'm sure he has the best of adaptations for himself and his family: Money.

Or at least his masters have the money.

Or he will be on the first batch to Mars.

Or he doesn't have a house in a coastal area. ...or he hasn't check his insurance statements lately.
---
Or most likely after all these years designing ballistic missiles the fumes of propellant finally got into his brain.

[Aggie]

A good example of lying with honesty maybe?

On some level I agree with the quoted material; note that I haven't checked out the rest. 


Of course, this would assume that all people in this world are globally mobile and can choose which part of the world they'd like to reside in.  WRONG - climate change will have huge impacts on what few traditional ways of life are left, and cause enormous pain and suffering in formerly fertile areas.

[anthrobabe]

this is my head  bashing against a brick wall

what's next new photos of Nessie--- oh well

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=F2BC8EFC-028F-442F-BD0F-92B117AE5601&t=s3&f=06/64&p=hotvideo_m_edpicks&fg=&GT1=10056


some climate change is totally natural-- but he seems to be saying-- well I'm not sure what he is saying--- arrogant?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

He seems to be saying that, say, 1000 thousand years or more from now the resulting climate could be better for... somebody? Pretty much like saying that the economy rose stronger from the 30s depression or that without the holocaust the Jews wouldn't have the nation of Israel, only that he is not saying it retrospectively, but loosely hoping it because it isn't his problem.

The whole thing isn't without several layers of irony, if sea levels rise due to climate change not only the Dutch and the Bangladeshi will have serious problems, but certain big NASA installations in the coast of Florida.

This guy is a true representative of the Cheney/Bush administration: "Whatever happens after my term is over is Not-My-Problem. In the mean time shut up because I'm making a kill here". 

[anthrobabe]

it's all going to be a kevin costner movie in 10000 years!

[Bluenose]

OK first off, I am a skeptic.  I am a skeptic about global warming as I am a skeptic about just about everything.  I am naturally skeptical.

What do I believe about global warming?  Well I believe that it is probably happenning and that it is less sure, although still likely, that global warming is at least in part anthropogenic.

The idea that we are experiencing global warming is largely based on mathematical models that themselves are based on observed temperature records at least as much as on theoretical models.  Remember that all models are essentially empirical or have a significant empirical content especially when we are dealing with an enormously complex and not entirely understood system.

When the main argument for some proposal seems to be that some sort of popularity poll for it (such as "most <insert category of expert of your choice> agree that...) I find my bullshit meter starts to register a disturbance.  I don't care how many so called experts agree about anything, the power of the arguments is all that interests me.  Do not forget that science is a human activity and is subject to all the pitfalls of other human activities.  Scientists need to feed their families and know very well that the funding is not nearly so forthcoming for those who wish to go against the trend regardless of what they really think, at least at first - once someone has begun to invest their energy into a particular line of reasoning it is not common for them to change later.  So I am not convinced by those who claim a majority of climate scientists say something, what are the arguments, do they stack up, have they considered all the evidence and counter arguments, does it pass Occam's Razor?

Some points that I believe are worth considering:

• Records of the most basic kind about temperature data go back maybe 150 years or so at best, in many places they are half that.
• For at least half that time the instruments measuring the temperature were not particularly accurate and right up until the present are mostly placed within urban areas.
• It is only within the last few decades since the advent of satellites that any way of measuring temperature in any sort of wholescale fashion across the globe has been possible.
• Urban areas are usually warmer by several degrees compared to the surrounding countryside for reasons that have nothing to do with global warming.
• We are still coming out of the "little ice age" and observed temperature increase could be simply a reflection of that.
• Natural variation in temperature data make it extremely difficult to pick out any long term trends which can be masked by various natural cycles in the climate, such as those correlated to the sun spot cycle.
• Given the short time span of the dataset, it cannot be said with certainty that apparent "long term" trends are not just an artifact of the natural cycles.
• Recent observations of Mars show the possibility that Mars may also be experiencing global warming, if so what does this say about the potential for terrestrial warming to be anthropogenic?

Now I am not trying to argue that global warming is not happening, only I urge caution at assuming that it is a proven reality and that if it is, it is caused by humans.  Additionally, I think that if we do have global warming, if the worst case scenarios are true (and I am a firm believer that worst case scenarios are almost never true) then perhaps we should be devoting at least as much energy into working out ways to live with it as we are in what may in the end prove to be a futile effort to stop it.

As for the NASA scientist quoted at the beginning of this thread, but I am afraid that we have seen a bit of an untoadfish like demonstration of intolerance here.  We may not agree with what this gentleman has to say, but to demonise a scientist just because he dares to have a different view to that which is the current received wisdom is a very dangerous thing indeed IMO.  We need scientists who are doubters, who question the current wisdom.  Without scientists who are prepared to go beyond that which we currently think we know we will never learn anything new.  I think we need to take a step back and consider whether we are being fair to this gentleman.  What he is saying does make a kind of sense and we should not just throw out his ideas because they challenge our own.

Sibling Bluenose

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

As for the NASA scientist quoted at the beginning of this thread, but I am afraid that we have seen a bit of an untoadfish like demonstration of intolerance here.  We may not agree with what this gentleman has to say, but to demonise a scientist just because he dares to have a different view to that which is the current received wisdom is a very dangerous thing indeed IMO.  We need scientists who are doubters, who question the current wisdom.  Without scientists who are prepared to go beyond that which we currently think we know we will never learn anything new.  I think we need to take a step back and consider whether we are being fair to this gentleman.  What he is saying does make a kind of sense and we should not just throw out his ideas because they challenge our own.

I guess I would like to make some distinctions.

Note that he says:

I have no doubt that global -- that a trend of global warming exists.

IOW he is not saying that he is skeptic about GW. The reason I quoted him is because I find his declarations particularly unfortunate; one thing is to say, I am skeptic of GW, or skeptic of anthropogenic GW, but his declaration seems to say: "I'm not really skeptic, I simply don't care". At the end of the interview (a transcript can be found here) he says what would be a more intelligent answer:

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.

Some of us may disagree with his attitude but in the end the mission of NASA at this point isn't related with any potential solution* to GW, and no one can argue with that.

It is his (IMO) geological justification what bothers me. You and I may debate if the science is ready or not, but it is important to recognize the potential that GW has to disrupt human activities in the coming years. A hurricane may or not pass over my house, should I sit down and do nothing? The odds of a large asteroid/comet crashing on our planet during our lives is quite small, but not small enough, should we just sit back and hope for the best?

On the same token you can rationally say: let insurers do their job, and if they think our odds aren't good enough they will (and have been) raise(ing) their rates for coastal areas or simply stop insuring them

IMHO, in a position like his, if he says we rather do nothing he better have a good reason and not a pitiful excuse like "who says our current weather is the optimum in geological terms?".

* if one is needed.