In other words, to reverse human-induced climate change would be arrogance, but allowing our carbon-hungry activity to substantially alter the climate for the next generation is the demure and proper path. I was always taught to "leave a place better than you found it," but if Griffin's right, I might as well just poop on your porch. Who's to say that's not how it should be?"I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists," Griffin told [NPR's Steve] Inskeep. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."
"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." (emphasis mine)
Critiquing the rationality of public policy, ruminating on modern life,
and exposing my inner nerd.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
NASA chief spaced out on global warming
Global warming is a scientific fact. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is perhaps one of the most science-dependent government agencies, since most of its activities are governed by scientific laws (gravity, thermodynamics, etc). So how is it that the NASA Administrator, chief of this science-based agency, can be so lackadaisical about global warming?
Labels:
climate change,
global warming,
skeptics
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
He doesn't seem to be dismissing global warming, but the idea that we're causing it. At least, that's the only way I can see his statement being logical. So a link, perhaps, to proof of causation?
Either way, he does seems a bit indifferent about it.
"Yup, it's getting hotter. Let's go to Mars!"
Post a Comment