Is the debate really over, or are those who question warming orthodoxy the ones being silenced?

Question

Dr. Michael Griffin, "The head of NASA -- the National Aeronautical and Space Association--is "an idiot" and "in denial." He is also "surprisingly naive" and "a fool." With his judgment and competence so lacking, demands abound for his resignation as head of the largest and most accomplished science agency in the world."

"Some might think Dr. Griffin is entitled to think for himself. Apart from his PhD in aerospace engineering, he holds five masters degrees, he is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and the International Academy of Astronautics, he manages a US$1.1-billion climate-research budget and was unanimously confirmed to head NASA by the United States Senate."

"But no. He is either "totally clueless" or "a deep anti-global warming ideologue," concludes Jerry Mahlman, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in a statement similar to many."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=2271ac23-6895-4789-9da0-6b

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=2271ac23-6895-4789-9da0-6b28968b8d15

Answer 1

WOW!

another high priest claims blasphemy in the church, so the members of the clergy rush to dismiss him as a heretic and attempt to excommunicate him.

imagine that?!?

"Unfortunately for society, Greg Easterbrook happened to be wrong in another claim: that Dr. Griffin hadn't lost his right to speak out. For all intents and purposes, he has. Within days of the uproar, Dr. Griffin decided that he should not have discussed "an issue which has become far more political than technical." In an apology to his staff, he said, "I feel badly that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this," adding that, "it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it."



this is the modern scientific way of building a "consensus".

Answer 2

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin doesn't "question warming orthodoxy." In fact, he said himself in an interview that, "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."

The part of his interview that surprised most climate scientists was his statement that, "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."

Sure, we don't know with absolute certainty that a warmer climate will be bad (although most climate scientists believe it will be). And I don't deny that some aspects of the current climate aren't exactly perfect. But we sure as hell don't know it will be better, either. So to say we ought to just, "roll the dice" with the entire human race at stake seems to me the very height of arrogance.

You ought, I think, to do your own research before posting stuff like this.

Answer 3

Gore met together with his spouse's cousin for a communicate on the subject of preparations for a kin day out on the movies to video exhibit the action picture "Hancock" (that is extraordinary). for the duration of that communicate his spouse's cousin had a humorous-looking tie which caught Gore's interest. Gore then made a remark with regard to the tie which led to them speaking approximately "tie" debates. a third source then spoke with regard to the Harlem Globe Trotters as she sipped some wine. the guy in the back of this female overheard and steadfastly refused to back faraway from her imaginative and prescient that the "Globe" trotters have been probable extraordinary debaters too. Gore then grew to alter into inspired and the subsequent day pronounced the international warming debate replaced into over. After, he took a sleep b/c the subsequent day he replaced into to make an visual allure at some commencement.

Answer 4

Griffin didn't question anthropogenic global warming - he questioned whether we should do anything about it.

He also questioned this immediately after his administration's top scientists had published a paper detailing the negative effects we'll face due to global climate change. These kinds of findings are quite common.

When an administrator of a scientific institution is completely oblivious to the findings of his institution's scientists, I don't think it's absurd for people to question whether he should remain in that position.

Answer 5

The "skeptics" are hardly being silenced. They're all over the media and the Internet.

But it is simply true that Dr. Griffins opinions reflect a tiny minority of the scientific community. And that, as a major scientific leader in the government, his position is strange.

A good analogy. Suppose the head of the biology department at Harvard announced that evolution was a myth and that a higher power had created fossils, the Grand Canyon, and all the other evidence 6000 years ago to "test our faith".

Think his fellow scientists would be non-critical? Think he'd have his job very long?

Answer 6

The current period of global warming has been scientifically proven to be man made, and any skeptic has something to lose from oil companies. How can anyone contradict over 99% of the scientific community and not believe the facts. Radical environmentalists are not like radical terrorists, they have the understanding to make informed decisions, and they aren't pot smoking hippies anymore. If anyone wants to contradict the science of global warming, then they can sit out on other scientific bonuses, like modern medicine.

Answer 7

The fanaticism and intolerance of environmental ideologues, including the mainstream media, know no limits. Following find useful information on this subject. I hope it helps.

Ideological environmentalism is a political ideology that embodies a sweeping agenda aimed at radically transforming how we live and work, and not exactly for the better.

The problem with ideological environmentalism, as with all other political ideologies, is that key predictions made by environmentalist ideologues about the future state of the Earth and humanity are simply not coming true. This is, indeed, a hidden crisis growing in the very heart of ideological environmentalism. Three of the canonical books at the modern founding of ideological environmentalism made sweeping claims about the impending fate of humanity and the Earth. The three books are: Silent Spring, written by Rachel Carson in 1962; The Population Bomb, written by Paul Ehrlich in 1968, a biologist from Stanford University; and The Limits of Growth, a report to the Club of Rome, published in 1972.

Carson predicted that modern synthetic chemicals, especially pesticides, would cause epidemics of cancer and kill off massive quantities of wildlife. Her predictions did not come true.

In the Population Bomb, Ehrlich confidently predicted that “the battle to feed all humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines- hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” His predictions did not come true.

The Limits to Growth incorporated the dogma of imminent depletion of natural resources to concerns about growing population and rising pollution. Its predictions did not come true.

This is very critical because Environmentalism is the first ideology to be deeply rooted in the natural sciences.

Like all ideologies, political environmentalism consists of two parts: a diagnosis and a cure. The ideological environmentalist diagnosis of the problems facing humanity is that modern societies are destroying the Earth and thus imperiling humanity. The cure they recommend is, as I said above, a series of sweeping policies that would radically reshape how the world works. “We must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization”, declared Al Gore in his own manifesto, Earth in the Balance.

The political message at the core of ideological environmentalism was then and is now “Do what I say or the world will come to an end.”

But the fact is that the original, enduring claims that first captured the attention of the public and policy makers have not turned out to be true. Science and economics simply have not backed up the predictions of ideological environmentalism.

Today, what is tottering is ideological environmentalism (which includes the man made global warming hysteria), not modern civilization. As more critics- including epidemiologists, demographers, toxicologists, climatologists, and economists- point ever more insistently at the yawning gap between claims of political environmentalism and scientific and economic reality, green ideologues are becoming ever more frantic to deny the growing contradictions.

LIKE COMMUNISM BEFORE IT, IDEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM WANTS TO CLAIM THE MANTLE OF OBJECTIVE SCIENCE TO JUSTIFY ITS POLITICAL PROGRAMS BECAUSE IN THE POST-ENLIGHTENMENT WORLD, SCIENCE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF WHAT IS OBJECTIVELY TRUE OR NOT. HOWEVER, AS THE COMMUNISTS DISCOVERED, THE FAILURE OF ONE’S IDEOLOGY TO CORRESPOND TO REALITY IS ULTIMATELY FATAL.

Answer 8

How can it be that the only two that answered this question be so far off from each other. Bob is like a genius and Mr. jello is a complete buffoon.

Answer 9

Yes, how arrogant of those who believe. The same thing has happened to Dr. Bill Gray. Here is a man who spent his whole life studding the climate, and when he comes to the conclusion that there is no man made global warming, he's dismisses as an old codger who should have retired 20 years ago.

The believers have no proof in their argument. It's either believe and follow us, or we'll kill off your career. It's no different than a religious crusade.

Answer 10

Griffith is not a climate scientist--he is one of Bush's political pals.

Yes--the debate is over. No one cares what the "skeptics" think-because they don't.