http://www.ecopayday.com

If they had any real proof of the the MMGW theory, they would not have had to resort to such a distortion of science and the scientific method to make their claims.

If the MMGW advocates were concerned about scientific truth:

- Mike Mann and the “hockey stick team” would have made their raw data available to others for peer review, not used “selective and corrupt data” and not created a computer model that created a “hockey stick graph” when random data was fed into the computer model.
-The MMGW group would not try to censor disenting scientific opinion, they would encourage it.
-They would not resort to “public scare tactics” by manipulating the Media to propogate their beliefs.
-They would not make “false and misleading” statements to the Public and Public Officials.
-They would recognize that Science is based on verification of observed phenomena, not arbitrary manipulation of computer models.

Worst of all, the IPCC is complicit in this scam by encouraging and actively participating in this distortion of Science.
The last IPCC report was released after the conclusions (The Summary For Policy Makers) were released.
They “altered” the report to fit the pre-determined “conclusions”!
Sounds like good science to me!

Other Inconvenient Truths:
- The Oregon Petition..17,800 scientists signed a petition saying they Don’t Believe in man-made global warming.
- The most recent IPCC report states that they 90% certain of their claims. The previous report stated that they were 95% certain.
- The IPCC claims they are right because they have a “consensus” of scientists who agree with them (ie. 2500 scientists).
Obvoiously, they don’t have a concensus since the “real consensus” is that 87.7% scientists don’t believe in MMGW!
Further, the small percentage of those scientists who do believe in MMGW (12.3%), are “less certain” than before!

Suggestions for NASA to do something about global warming go along the lines of putting a mirror shield in space in front of the Earth to keep the sunshine off, or maybe adulterating the atmosphere. Dumsping iron powder in the ocean to promote… algae I think… worked but not very well. The algae - if it’s algae - are supposed to eat carbon dioxide.

Hey, could we still bomb ourselves to a nuclear winter? Solved! But we’d have to do it again like every ten years.

That is a horrible quote-mine of what Griffith said. He said it would be arrogant for one person to decide that the current climate is optimal for all other human beings. That’s all he said about arrogance, nothing more, nothing less. He said nothing about manmade climate change there, nor about things getting better or worse.

What did Griffith say after being asked about his concerns? Evidence seems to pretty well nail down that humans are currently causing global warming. He’s an engineer, and administrator, not a climatologist, so of course he cannot say definitively if it is a long term concern. But he’s not saying it’s NOT a long term concern, despite all the suggestions otherwise.

As to mankind wrestling with global warming, in my opinion Griffith’s main concern in that question was that we cannot fully control climate change. In that sense he is right, we are powerless to compensate for solar and cosmic events (and maybe even earth events like catastrophic volcano eruptions) causing climate change. He said nothing about reducing or not reducing current human influence. Perhaps he should have, in his position, if only to clarify his reply.

And what is wrong about his last answer on the NPR page? It is clearly connected to the earlier questions in the interview about the NASA budget, and here he’s answering as NASA administrator again. He simply says it is not in NASA’s charter to battle climate change, and does not offer an opinion on whether it should or shouldn’t be. As I see it, he responds to the question of how he puts together the budget, saying he does that based on the agency’s charter (and thus not on his personal concerns).

Listening to the interview makes it clear to me that he was asked questions as administrator, and personal questions. (If you did not listen to it then shame on you, instead relying on excerpts on the NPR website, or worse, relying on Phil’s partial quoting of them, or, even worse, some commenter’s understanding of them.) Taking his media comment on its own, without the context of it applying to the mixing of personal and professional questions making media interviews difficult (as the Yahoo News page shows), is in my opinion pretty unfair.

Where does that leave us? Griffith made no positive statement that manmade climate change should be reduced. I think he should have. Also, he did not argue to NOT reduce it. Even if anyone thinks that’s what he meant, he did NOT say so. To suggest what he meant is pure assumption, and I would have thought that the fallout after the initial Shannon Malloy story would be enough warning against assuming too much based on a few quotes.

btw Dave Huntsman: “Saying that it’s arrogant for humans to think they can affect the climate is dumb.” It’s a lot dumber to suggest Griffith said that, when in fact he said the exact opposite in response to the first question on the NPR page. Pretty much your entire post falls apart because you mix up words from several sentences in the interview and then respond to it as if they were Griffith’s words.

I do not recall such a suggestion being made in any statement by the IPCC, by the NAS, by other national science institutions, by any atmospheric science research institutions, or by anyone else actively researching and vocally supporting climate change science. If I have missed something, please correct me. But as far as I can tell, you are attempting to discredit the rigor of modern atmospheric science knowledge with the words of a few clueless environmentalists who don’t know what the term “latent heat” means. That is a sloppy and lazy substitute for a legitimate point of contention.