NASA’s Administrator has a very reasonable question about the Global Warming dogma:
“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.”
Questioning the “scientific truth” of global warming, though, is a very bad idea if you’re a scientist. Some have argued that the current state of the global warming debate is much more religion than science — the argument is that the scientific community has a too strong an aversion to questions and criticisms of the theory for it to be rational. As if seeking to validate this idea, proponents of the opinion that global warming is caused by humans had this reaction:
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.”
And this:
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.
Because if everyone believes it, it must be true. It’s the visceral and decidedly irrational responses to questions like these that make me view the whole thing with strong skepticism. They somewhat remind me of the kind of responses you get from asking tough questions about God of Southern Baptist Sunday School teachers.
And then, as though the author was looking to make his article a parody of itself, not long after writing that some scientists were (allegedly) worried that they might lose their jobs for speaking out, he quoted another so-called scientist who had this to say: “I was shocked by the statement and I think the administrator ought to resign.”
That’s right. Because science is not about questioning the “known”, it’s about taking your marching orders and falling in line.
Right?
There are “visceral and decidedly irrational responses to questions like these” from both sides. I for one think that ignoring mountains of scientific data suggesting that global warming is a problem is a bit more than just irrational, it is irresponsible.
Even assuming that global warming (or global climate change or whatever label you feel more comfortable with) is not going to usher in Armageddon, can you honestly say that curbing CO2 emissions, developing friendlier and sustainable fuel sources, decreasing our dependence on foreign oil (which always has to come from politically unstable regions and is guaranteed to run out eventually) are BAD things?
I think that global warming is a problem, so I behave in a fashion that is as environmentally responsible as possible (to say nothing of the fact that it saves me money.) To suggest that we shouldn’t try to combat what is a problem no matter which way you look at it seems insane.
And just so we are clear, I think that denying the problem of global warming (and dismissing it as dogmatic) is just about the equivalent of advocating creationism.
There are those mythical “mountains” of evidence that I’ve been hearing so much about.
What I’ve seen are “mountains” of evidence that it’s possible that humans can/have influenced in some appreciable and controllable way the global climate. I’ve seen very little causal evidence that those things have actually happened or are happening. And even less that this is actually a “problem”.
I’ve also seen a lot of evidence that suggests that it’s possible that intelligent life exists somewhere out there and that said life could be very aggressive if it ever found us.
Yet I don’t see anyone rushing to erect Alien Defense Stations. I wonder why that is. It couldn’t hurt, could it? You know… just in case?
Besides, Pete, you’ve fallen into the same rut that the above scientists have: you ignored the question by assuming that anyone who reached a different conclusion based on the “mountains” of evidence is wrong. That’s not really how science works.
Nowhere did I say that Global Warming theory was wrong, only that in these particular scientists (and in many others) the view is dogmatic (those two things are not mutually exclusive) and that one has to question the impartiality of any “scientist” who responds to a scientific question with anger and insults.
“To suggest that we shouldn’t try to combat what is a problem no matter which way you look at it seems insane.”
Actually that’s exactly what the NASA Chief was saying: that he doesn’t necessarily think that it is a problem. So it seems that, presented in this very article, is a way to look at it in which Global Warming is not a problem. It’s not one you agree with, but that doesn’t make it wrong. It also doesn’t make it “insane”.
This shouldn’t be politics, it should be science. Unfortunately it’s much more of the former and much less of the latter any more.
After all, a whole lot of folks used to think that the earth was flat and were every bit as militant (and then some) as today’s climate zealots are.
I’m not sure why it’s so much to ask that, when a scientific theory is questioned, that it be answered with science rather than invective. Something you didn’t even manage to avoid (”irresponsible” and “insane” come to mind)
…and I wasn’t even addressing the original question, only the manner in which it was responded to, where it should be easy for a rational person to look at the response and say: “I disagree with the original point, but I also do not believe that the discussion is well-served by the responses by the scientists.”
Instead you (and so many others) start hurling around extreme language and insults to try to bully those who don’t agree (or who have questions) into agreeing with you.
So thanks, I guess, for providing another perfect example of what I’m talking about.
Really? You felt bullied? Come on now.
When I want someone knowledgeable about climate, I ask a climatologist. When I want an administrative opinion on aeronautics and space exploration, I will ask Michael Griffin.
I said that you tried to bully, I didn’t say that it worked.
Oooh… so since he’s not a climatologist, he’s not entitled to an opinion or to ask questions that merit an answer? I don’t care what you think about his question or opinion, I want to know why it’s okay for so-called scientists to resort to intellectual bullying instead of just answering his question.
If he’s so drastically wrong it should be quite simple for them to display how that is.
Unless, of course, they don’t actually have an answer for that question and want to avoid conceding a weakness in their “science.” So they figure, and rightly so (apparently), that some people will be impressed and persuaded by the vitriol, convinced that since these people are “experts” that if they are angry about it, there must be a good reason.
…I’m still missing the part where this is science. Of course you’re doing a fine job from deflecting the actual questions.
Do you believe that the responses contained in the article were appropriate, scientific responses to an honest and sincere scientific question? (Or really a question of any type… the best way to shoot down a sarcastic question is with a real answer, not by perpetuating the sarcasm)
I want to add to the debate and talk about the problems of transitioning widely-accepted peer-review theories into scientific fact and the problems of informing policy with branches of science dependent that depend at least paritally on simulation and historical projection. Unfortunately, I can’t past that first quote without my brain hurting.
To discuss the presumption and arrogance of the “correct” Earth climate is completely dodging the question. The issues of global warming are not to reinstate the planet to its moral balance; the issues are if the weather’s gonna get too hot for crops to grow or if ice cap loss is going to change rain patterns or make the oceans flood Los Angeles. We (the here-and-now humans) get to make that call for the same reasons we do anything; we’d like to continue to live and eat and not drown and make more humans, so they can live and eat and not drown. Whatever the cause (or even direction) of climate change, we have the right to affect it because we have a right to try to survive. Who cares if it’s arrogant or if the planet was a dozen degrees hotter or colder thousands of years ago? Let’s just keep the climate in the range where potatoes and whatever cows like to eat keeps on growing.
It would be one thing to say that the projections are wrong and that he has a different analysis; Griffin is suggesting that its presumptuous to think that we’d be better off with the Earth not getting much hotter, that the effects of climate change might be positive. I have to agree with the experts that Griffin’s quote makes it sound like he doesn’t get the (potential) problem.
As far as the actual issue of global warming, a quick google search reveals that the national academy of science (or its equivalence) for every industrialized nation identifies this as a problem, and 30+ scientific organizations dedicated to the study of this issue see it as a major problem. Dissent seems relatively small (it never goes away, which is a necessary part of the scientific method and peer-review). It’s probably worth reading a few review articles at your local university library to make an informed opinion, but it seems like this theory was at least pretty well grounded before politics beat the life out of it.
I could be misinterpreting his point, but I read him to mean that while the effects of X climate change might be harmful to people in regions A, B, and C, it could very well be quite helpful to people in other regions. You seem to speak of people as a unified whole, whereas I interpret his question to be more speaking of people as divisible groups, some of whom would probably stand to benefit greatly from a bit of climate change.
And that’s to say nothing of the people who will be harmed by keeping developing nations from developing unless they can do it with incredibly expensive technology.
Like everything, reducing our carbon dioxide emissions has a cost. The question is not whether we “should” or “shouldn’t” cut our emissions. I think we can all agree that, if it were free, that it would be preferable to limit our emissions to some “ideal” amount. The fact is that it’s not free, and we have to decide how much change makes sense.
That decision depends almost entirely on the severity of the consequences. Doomsday predictions like the ones most commonly bandied about might serve to get people behind a cause, but it doesn’t help us make good decisions.
As for all of these government organizations… many of them stand to lose substantial government funding if Global Warming turns out to be no big deal… and while they may employ many scientists, the organizations are, at their heart, bureaucratic… and if there are two things bureaucrats do, it’s spend every penny they’re given and try to ensure that next years dole will be at least as big as this year’s.
That speaks to their credibility but not their accuracy. The problem is that this issue is so ridiculously politicized that very few of the scientists (on either side) are actually credible, and it’s nearly impossible to figure out which ones are.
But, still, my point was not to argue Global Warming… but merely to call out a very un-scientific reaction to a reasonable question. It may have a very reasonable answer and be, in effect, a simple question… but you see no evidence of that from the outrage spouted by these so-called scientists.
Consider the following: a friend says that his computer is behaving “randomly.” That things — through no action of his — are changing on the system. He says that it’s because the computer is old, so the circuits start to lose their charge and transmit the wrong bits.
Now, I have two courses of action — I can respond to his theory with some facts, figures, and theories to explain why this isn’t really what’s going on… or I can froth and carry on about how this is “stupid” and “insane”.
Nobody would argue that the second reaction is the reasoned, intelligent, or appropriate one. Why is it any different with climate change, a topic even more complex and less accessible than computer architecture?
The points you make regarding regional variability and the developing nations problem are excellent points and great cautions against a blanket “everyone reduce NOW!” strategy for dealing with climate change. I still don’t see how the “where and when” can be considered evidence a regional approach because of the question of when, but I also didn’t see the boring stuff the reporter threw away. Again, I’m basing my opinions off of the info I found on a quick search, but it seems the doomsday projections are the results of statistical modeling and not simple rhetoric designed to rally the troops (models have assumptions, hence the variability in projections. The assumptions are based on research, etc….).
You’re right that the national political debate about global warming (or frankly, most anything) consists primarily of people with entrenched viewpoints reacting irrationally to any critique of their proposals. This is true in the scientific world, albeit on a lesser scale and hopefully with opinions informed by years of study and careful data analysis. I also think you started to answer your own question by describing climate change as complex an inaccessible. At least politically, its a field that no one knows about (meteorology and its related historical fields), studied with tools no one really knows about (statistical and mathematical modeling), leading to one of two extreme viewpoints. Either the fluctuations are irrelevant because they are around a clear trend, or the trend is irrelevant because who can say for sure that a 100 year trend in millions of years of history is real. I’d love to see more informed debate over any issue, including this one.
While I won’t go so far as to insinuate climate change is at this point yet, doesn’t there become a point in the transition of an accepted and dominant theory to fact that the dissenters should be ignored? The image of science is that someone just says ‘EUREKA!’ and all of the other scientists throw a party to spread the word, but it can take decades for the holdovers to relinquish or die out (most often the second one, sadly). Would this article look so funny if a NASA guy said he didn’t think heliocentricity was legit, and a dozen other scientists said he was a moron? What if the public was divided over the religious implications of the Earth not being the center of the universe? Food for thought, I suppose.
Wait, I am somewhat stunned. Michael Griffin is essentially saying in his quote “who’s to say climate change is bad, maybe it will be a change for the better?”
That is a stupid statement. Read it again. This has nothing to do with whether or not climate change is going to happen. Griffin is saying that even if it does, who are we to say the world wouldn’t be better hot. That we shouldn’t judge what climate is best for other people. We would be arrogant to think that the Inuits want the ice to stick around. Griffin is proposing policy, (a stupid one at that,) not questioning the science.
If the global temperature goes up, land ice melts, sea levels rise, currents shift, storms become less predictable. Millions die or are displaced. This is not disputed. When you raise the temperature of ice, it melts. Yay, science. When ice on land melts, it flows downhill into the sea. More science. When more water goes into the sea, the water level rises. Am I losing you yet? OK now here is the switch to sociology: People live where they live because they have adapted to particular climates. Climate change disrupts geography, people have to move or abandon their cultural adaptations to particular climates.
Your computer analogy is not precise. It is as if things in the computer were behaving randomly, and the head of NASA said, “who are we to judge whether some users might not like this blue error screen better.”
“That is a stupid statement.”
I figured you would say that, Corey. Just like everything else you disagree with.
“This is not disputed.”
Just because you say it doesn’t make it true.
PS: I’m still waiting for you to go away.
That’s not very scientific of you.
Here’s a quote, seems we agree on the interpretation:
“…but I read him to mean that while the effects of X climate change might be harmful to people in regions A, B, and C, it could very well be quite helpful to people in other regions.”
Are you going to do the utilitarian calculus involved in trading off the harm in A, B, and C for the benefit in other regions? Or do you, like Griffin, want to throw up your hands and say “who can tell” as an excuse for doing nothing (and allowing a foreseeable harm to occur in A, B, and C.)
See that’s the whole dilemma here. If climate change occurs, the people who get hurt by it aren’t going to be the people who caused it. Doing nothing protects the current distribution of risk. You can afford to adapt to any climate change, the people in Bangladesh… not so much. Oh, but that’s right, maybe they will be better off if the rising sea levels clear all the trash off the beaches. I’ll keep my fingers crossed for them. I hope they turn out to be climate change winners!
It wasn’t very scientific because, frankly, I’ve tired greatly of your “style” of “argument”. The novelty has worn off — after all, a dog and pony show is pretty short with a one-trick pony.
The only amusement left is seeing how long you’re going to hang around just to troll.
OK, well if you think of a substantive response later the arguments will still be there.
And I’m sure you’ll still be checking.