Posted by: al66888 | June 1, 2007

Yes, this guy is a lot smarter than you

And me! And most for that case.  He fits into the phrase, ‘what do I look like, a rocket scientist?’.  Well, yes, actually, he is.   He is NASA administrator Michael Griffin, and he is not sure if we should be ‘wrestling’ with the issue

“To assume that is a problem is to assume that the state of the 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 it doesn’t change,” he said. “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.

“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 might 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.”

But what I find is most astonishing about the story is not the Common Sense that ‘hey, we might not be causing this’ but more how the author of the article dismisses the view of a NASA engineer and promotes the view of watchdog group.

But Griffin’s assessment merely reflects a Bush administration reluctance to address a major environmental problem, according to David Willett, chief spokesman for the Sierra Club, the nation’s oldest environmental advocacy group.

“What makes it doubly concerning is that NASA is on the front line, really able to sound the warning bell of what’s happening to our planet because they get the planet-wide view,” Wiliett said. “They have given the scientific consensus already. They should feel an obligation to be looking at the issue of global warming as a problem that needs to be addressed, not as a phenomenon that simply needs to be studied.”

View the full article here


  1. So the fact that Michael Griffin is a NASA administrator (later you say NASA engineer) and “smarter than I am” means that his opinion deserves to go unchallenged? Plato, is that you writing this blog? Still haven’t given up on those philosopher kings have you?

  2. No, all opinions deserve to be challenged, isn’t that what science is about?

    A few things:
    1. Do you think there are many NASA administrator’s who are not engineers? Mr. Griffin served as Chief Engineer and Associate Administrator of Exploration. You can see his bio on NASA’s site because he is actually both.

    2. Did you read the article? I know the link is still being queued, so I’m not sure if you even read the full article or not. If you want to talk about philosopher kings, how about this unchallengable statement, “They should feel an obligation to be looking at the issue of global warming as a problem that needs to be addressed, not as a phenomenon that simply needs to be studied.”

    So I guess that part has to be taken as a statement of fact?

    Thanks for the post, feel free to fwd me any scientific evidence and/or articles for future posts.

  3. Griffin is a rocket scientist not an environmental scientist. NASA’s own environmental scientists disagree with him. They are smarter than us, too.

    Who are you going to listen to on this issue?

  4. I’m going to listen to everyone, gather the facts, and draw my own conclussions. For all the eviromental scientists that agree, there are that many that disagree.

    I’m not sying that the temp hasn’t risen, I’m questioning our involvement in it. Frankly, some of the arguments are weak, and the solutions even weaker. Many of the global warming ‘solutions’ are environmentally crazy. (see my CFLs post).

  5. That is the best way. It being impossible to listen to everyone on any issue one might wonder about though, we all have to take shortcuts. We have to choose who we will listen to, and what weight to give their pronouncements over others. The weight of actual evidence should be what sways the issue.

    I’m sure many arguments are weak on all sides. Doubtless many many proposed solutions would be ineffective or worsen rather than alleviate the problem. They should be evaluated and investigated individually and rejected or accepted on their merits or lack thereof.

    Michael Griffin seems to be saying we shouldn’t worry ourselves about the issue, because the current global climate is not necessarily the “right” one. Obviously there is no “right” one, but there are way more climates that would be wrong for the future of humanity than right.

    I think because the issue is large, confusing, disputed, and very significant if it is actually occurring is a reason to spend more rather than fewer resources investigating.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: