Comments from NASA Director

[legion]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070612/cm_rcp/science_misused_from_the_peace

Which brings me to the furor created when NASA administrator Michael Griffin told National Public Radio he doubted global warming was really a problem. When the politically correct exploded, Mr. Griffin apologized for airing his views, but not for their contents.

Nor should he. It is a matter of faith among the politically correct that the evidence for man-made global warming is so strong there is no longer room for debate. The "evidence" they cite most frequently are the claims of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

But when Lawrence Solomon interviewed two dozen top scientists for a series of articles in Canada's National Post, he learned that "many say their peers generally consider (the IPCC) to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position."

When Mr. Solomon asked the UN for a list of the scientists allegedly supporting the IPCC position, he was turned down.

The theory is that carbon dioxide emissions from our factories and automobiles are warming the planet. But the evidence from earlier warmings is that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increased after, not before, the warming trend began.

Scientists do science a disservice when they massage evidence to fit politically correct conclusions, or ignore it altogether.

[M.D. Holloway]

...Scientists do science a disservice when they massage evidence to fit politically correct conclusions, or ignore it altogether.


Is that why we have technical writers? Reality is what is in print...

[djmcmath]

I was wondering when this news would make it here. I was listening to the interview when it happened on NPR, and thought that the interviewer had pushed the poor guy about to his limits on global warming. I mean, of all the things to ask the NASA director, he just kept going on G.W., like it should be the #1 super-hot issue for all of NASA to be 100% focused on. Bizarre.

[jluetjen]

Submitted without comment...

[sammyg2]

Al gore is a wacko.

I've stated my opinion many times here that global warming, which is happening, has nothing to do with mankind. There just isn't real evidence to support their theory. I feel it is politically motivated, an easy way to scare people into conservation.

[legion]

Sammy, I can respect that. I might even buy it over time. What I can't accept at this point is those who say: "Global warming is happening, it is caused by people, and the science is proven, case closed."

[TimothyFarrar]

I can say from personal experience with scientists (some in the family, good thing they don't read pelican), that the objective evidence never comes up in any talk about global warming. And I have asked many times for the evidence. The answer is always, just as Chris says, it has been proven by many scientists. Now these people are objective people when it comes to solving solvable problems in their day to day lives.

Anyone care to take a stab in posting some numerical evidence that dis-proves the global warming craze?

This should be easy, only have to prove that the sun and natural processes have more control over the global temperature than man. They only have 2 thin legs to stand on, one that man is adjusting the atmosphere more than nature would alone (ie volcanoes, etc), and that the sun's energy output and earth's core temp have a lower flux than the results of man's green house gas output.

Another simple question is if the Earth was to transition into another ice age, could man produce enough green house gas to stop it.

[red-beard]

Man flurishes when temps are warmer, so says the History Channel.