This morning on NPR, Michael Griffin--the head of an agency which has funded some of the best global warming research--said out loud without the slightest hint of shame:
I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. 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. 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. And 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 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.
Griffin is setting up some egregious strawmen here. First, nobody is saying that this is the best of all climates. The issue is that this particular climate is the one that our current biosphere and world economy is based on. It's the one that determined where we built our cities. Where we grow our food. The arrogant position is to suggest that the poor of the world might be happier if they had to pick up and move, give up their homes, learn to live with more frequent and dangerous storms, crop failures, and wars touched off by mass migrations. The arrogant position is to suggest that the climate is for human beings alone, and the rest of nature can go hang.
Griffin also pretends that carbon reduction advocates expect to prevent the natural processes of climate change that happen over thousands of years. Human society and the biosphere can adapt to change on this timescale. It's manmade climate change we are worried about, and that is happening much faster and to a society where most people already live on the fringe of poverty.
It is particularly painful for me to see the head of NASA sounding like Ann Coulter. I love space exploration and NASA has always been a great and heroic agency to me, no less because of the work NASA has done on global change. For Griffin to have been in charge of all this science and to refuse to acknowledge the social and political implications of the science is just beyond stupid.
I am anticipating the response of the actual scientists at realclimate.org.
4 comments:
How can you claim concern for the worlds poor when the policies promoted to stop anthropogenic warming are responsible for depriving millions the progress which could prevent death and disease in the poorest countries? All the things you list as potential results of incresaed global temperatures are speculative. Millions of people dying young as the result of not having cheap electricity is a reality.
The frightening aspect of this interview was that this man oversees an agency which is doing some of the key science on climate change whose results he is dismissing. This makes it obvious why that science is not as well funded as it should be and several key scientists have been muzzled and prevented from talking to congress or the press.
Griffin's remarks are not as directly related to the issue of how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions However, I doubt that having cheap electricity through burning coal, particularly lignite, will provide a net gain for the health status of populations in developing countries.
Global warming is certainly accelerated by carbon emissions from human activities, yet it is vital that we must reexamine both the positive and negative effects of a warmer.
Although I do not approve Griffin's statements, I strongly suggest that we all should consider whether catastrophic views of global warming are credible.
Several months ago, I read an article in Reader's Digest Asia (unfortunately I couldn't find it)
which states that humans are actually capable of facing a warmer climate e.g. during the Roman empire grapes were grown in England and sea levels were substantially higher. Colder times are associated with social turbulence like the "small ice age" (is this the correct term?)before the 20th century.
I do believe that carbon-producing activities should be stopped, but nonetheless, humans should develop ability to cope with climate change. For example, the popularisation of heat-resistant crops would be a necessary step besides reducing greenhouse gases.
Global warming is a damaging threat, without any doubt. However, there has been a trend of apocalyptic views towards global warming which may not be necessary. Scientists must reevaluate their evaluation of global warming effects.
Regarding the electricity issue, developing countries are facing a dilemma since renewable energy sources are not cost-effective enough (solar, tidal, wind powers, hydroelectric are still expensive and inefficient for large-scale production). Many househoulds in Indonesia, for example, returned to coal and wood to fuel stoves after a dramatic rise in oil price, with obvious repercussions. Coal, in Indonesia, is a cheap source of energy. It is the ultimate challenge to find cheap electricity source.
It is sad to hear this especially from my very own project's funding agency! While it is indeed true that it is "not" NASA's decision to act on the data/results gathered by it, one "cannot" just ignore the painful analyses carried out by thousands of scientists around the world (who make it a career to study climate change) based on that data. And as far as "privileged rights" go, the reports such as that of IPCC are never binding/forced upon any one individual/government - it is up to us humans to decide whether to be frivolous (as the comment made), or act on it for a better tomorrow.
While Rafadi may not be off the mark on suggesting that we try to be adaptive to climate change, there is no reason why we can't try and make that not-so-easy transition/adaptation as minimal as possible.
Post a Comment