Why did the top NASA guy just com out and say we (humans) shouldn't worry about Global Warming?

Question

Let see the alarmist answer this one. Is he ignorant? Is he bought by big oil? Why would he say this? Surely he know we are all about to die from Global Warming. Should he lose his job? He must be silenced if he doesn't beleive in GW, right?

Answer 1

The NASA scientist made a very courageous statement.

I know several of the NASA scientists involved in global warming research.

There have been a number of cutbacks in the space programs and many of the NASA scientists have lost their jobs in the space program due to budget cuts.

Even though we have a large bioscience community here in silicon valley, the skills of many of the NASA scientists do not match the needs of the bioscience companies. The NASA scientists have a difficult time finding other work in their field and at a level of pay anywhere near the amount of money they made at NASA when they lose their jobs due to budget cuts..

The Global Warming research fundiing has been wonderful for many of the NASA scientists. They can keep their jobs by doing Global Warming research. They create the most frightening computer models to keep the funding coming for Global Warmiing research.

I was very surprised that this scientist had the courage to say publicly that the threat due to Global Warming is not as great as it has been made out to be.

His fellow scientists are furious because his statements threaten funding for Global Warming research and the jobs of the NASA scientists who are doing the Global Warming research.

Unfortunately this courageous scientist will probably lose his job because his colleagues are now furious with him.

Answer 2

They should stop using the term global warming when they really mean "human caused global warming." It is a clever and devious way to imply that all warming is man made. Most people probably equate the two when in fact there is way too much contradictory evidence to conclude that humans cause global warming. It is rediculous to read these alarmists crying that we are warming. They need to wake up and realize that it has to either warm or cool. Warming is generally better. The world is not a static place. Climates, habitats,and sea levels change over time and we are not responsible for every little thing. If something good happened, you know we humans would not get the credit from this bunch so that tells you who they really are and what they stand for.

Answer 3

You're not one of those skeptics that reads a headline then writes your own story to fit the headline are you?

If you read the article then you'll know that he's not questioning global warming - right at the begining he says "I have no doubt that global warming exists", repeat, "I have no doubt that global warming exists".

He then goes on to express an opinion, that's all - an opinion, he never questions global warming, doesn't refute the science, raises no objections.

If you want to refute global warming it's a good idea not to quote someone who says "I have no doubt that global warming exists".

--------------

Edit: To Mc (below). You're right, I did miss out the word trend - I got my info from an e-mail and only scanned through. However, global warming IS a trend so the inclusion or omission of the word doesn't make much differnce - "I have no doubt that global warming exists" or "I have no doubt that the global warming trend exists" - same thing.

Today's climate isn't used as the base line. The mean for the period 1960 to 1990 is the standard baseline. 30 years because this is long enough to eliminate anomoloies, errors and deviations and up to 1990 as this is when the study of global warming began in earnest.

There is no ideal climate, it's always in a state of flux. Ideal for one species isn't necessarily ideal for another. The current warming will be beneficial to some but detrimental to others.

If he's going to speak out then some people are obviously going to 'tear him apart'. It works both ways, look at what happens to people who speak out in support of global warming - the skeptics tear into them, Al Gore being the classic example.

Answer 4

He was stating his own personal views.

Trevor misquoted him, his actual statement was "I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists" Leaving out the word trend makes it sound like he believes man is responsible, while saying there is a trend makes it sound like he believes that the process is natural.
I have been saying this for a while, why is today's climate used as the baseline, it has been much colder and much hotter in times past. The animals suited to live in those cold or hot climates who died out because of climate change would certainly debate you as to the temperature of the ideal climate.
It is time humans realized that the planet does not not belong to us, it does not conform to our needs.

Another thing, the second he made these remarks people started attacking him personally. Just a few hours after the remarks I heard a report completely tearing him apart, it dug up his past jobs and started criticizing his work experience. Here is a perfect example of why some scientists will not admit their true views on global warming, they will be attacked and for younger scientists their careers could be destroyed.

Answer 5

Mr. griffin wasn't stating NASA's official stance on the theory, as he said himself, just his own personal opinion. Also, if you read the article Mr. Griffin quite clearly says "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." I would hardly call that saying we shouldn't worry about it.

I have to say though, it seems odd that you "skeptics" have absolutely no problem dismissing offhand the opinion of any climate scientist, no matter how qualified or distinguished, who agrees with the consensus. Yet the moment a scientist expresses his personal opinion, and disagrees with the consensus, his word is the final and authoritative word on the subject, and should absolutely go unquestioned. Why should the opinion of Mike Griffin on global warming be held in any higher esteem than that of James Hanson, Michael Mann, or any other climate scientist, who you simply wave away? If you're going to flit about calling yourselves skeptics you've got to be skeptical of everybody, not just people who disagree with you.

Answer 6

Additionally, NASA is a government institution. If they want funding in the next budget, they have to keep the administration happy. NASA has already been directed to stop using the term "global warming" and instead say "climate change", so it's surprising that this guy even used that term to express his personal opinions, which differ from NASA's scientific conclusions.

Answer 7

"Griffin’s remarks are stunning, coming just days after his own agency released a report warning of the “disastrous effects” of climate change:

Even “moderate additional” greenhouse emissions are likely to push Earth past “critical tipping points” with “dangerous consequences for the planet,” according to research conducted by NASA and the Columbia University Earth Institute.

With just 10 more years of “business as usual” emissions from the burning of coal, oil and gas, says the NASA/Columbia paper, “it becomes impractical” to avoid “disastrous effects.”

James Hansen, NASA’s top climate scientist, called Griffin’s dismissal of global warming “an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement.” “It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change,” he added.

Also, scientific consensus does not hold that today’s climate is the “best climate.” We are already seeing melting glaciers, higher temperatures, and stronger natural disasters. The most recent assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated, “Changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent.”

Answer 8

Some of the posts before mine suggest you might have understood his remarks incorrectly. No matter, the threat posed by abrupt acute changes to the local climates of the earth as the atmosphere's composition changes due to pollution and human energy consumption, is very real. The scientists studying the problem have worked hard to collect the evidence needed to evaluate the problem and humans are well-advised to act prudently and avoid a CO2 buildup that leads to a general rise in the average temperature of the surfaces of the globe. People who want to properly understand the problem should study* Le Chatelier's principle *of how a system in equilibrium with its surroundings changes when the internal chemical composition of the system changes. The abruptness of a runaway change in climates could result in serious food chain disruptions as the result of unexpected and unknown species extinctions. Our knowledge of the microscopic ecology of the planet and our understanding of the ecological relationships between diverse life forms and diverse habitats is in its infancy from a scientific standpoint. People with an amateur understanding of these matters had better defer to the scientists who spend their lives to understand these matters and advise the rest of us how best to proceed. Folks we are entering uncharted scientific waters and we should proceed prudently erring on the side of caution at least while we learn more about the problems facing mankind because of our physical activities that have an impact on the planetary equilibriums.

Answer 9

because he understands that the earth is a complex system of inter-related causes and effects.

The Earth in essence has its own built-in thermostat... as it gets warmer, things happen to the atmosphere and oceans to decrease heat absorbtion and increase heat radiation.

More clouds form... the white atmosphere reflects more solar energy than the multicolored land and oceans.

The oceans warm due to the earth retaining more heat as a rescult of increased CO2... more microscopic plants (PHYTOPLANKTON) grow in the warmer water... they absorb more CO2... more food for fish... CO2 in the atmosphere starts declining.

The snow/ice in Siberea, Alaska and Canada melts... land is eposed for more vegetation to grow. (in the distant past, Alaska was prime farmland...)

Strange how things interact....

Not all aspects of the average global climate getting warmer are negative. Its possible that the POSITIVE effects will outweigh the negatives!

OK... so New Orleans will only be able to be toured by glass bottom boat... Thats probably a good thing.

Answer 10

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I personally agree with him, in that it is a concern but not something to panic about. We need to find alternatives to oil anyway, because oil will run out some day, so it is a concern even if you don't worry about global warming.