No! He was rationalising what he believes - that Man's desire to explore is a
good thing! He was brought in a culture where "Go West young man" is idomatic.
He lives in a world where being optimistic leads to success, and being the very
optimistic bloke he is, he is now in charge of a multi billion dollar project.
As a result he is hardly likely to say that the world is coming to an end, is
he?
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Feeney
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 10:52 PM
Subject: [Global Change: 1689] Re: NASA Administrator Griffin "not sure"
global warming is a problem
I know nothing about Griffin's politics or scientific views, so this is just
a hunch.
But is it possible that he was ducking on the science -- or maybe even
covering for AGW commentators like Hansen within his agency -- by expressing
outrageous views that he thought would be likely to please Cheney & Inhoffe,
etc.?
I think it's intriguing that Griffin managed to be as anti-interventionist as
anti-Green as possible, as close to endorsing the fossil fuel lobby as
possible, yet without denying the scientifi case for climate change.
Michael Tobis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The impact of a new climate equilibrium may well be a net positive,
though the losers in such a scenario may feel robbed by the winners.
That's entirely beside the point. We are moving into sustained rates
of change rarely if ever seen in nature, even in the rather
climatically erratic recent million years. It is indeed outlandish to
suggest that this is a good idea.
Economists seem to think derivatives (they call them "marginal rates")
are some subtlety unique to themselves, but the slightest exposure to
physical science makes clear the whole physical universe seems to be
glued together with first and second order differential equations.
In the present case, whether one equilibrium is slightly better than
another is of little consequence as the rate of disruption continues
to accelerate.
Heiko, Griffin is severely wrong and to the extent you agree with him
you are wrong too.
The difference is that he represents an agency which should have
expertise on the matter. I would hope that if you were in a position
of similar responsibility you would take into account the opinions of
the experts who were in your agency before making such a sweeping
statement.
mt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck
in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
