Top NASA official questions global warming, takes heat from colleagues

Posted by: ST on May 31, 2007 at 11:43 am

Trouble in paradise

RSS feed for comments on this post.

17 Responses to “Top NASA official questions global warming, takes heat from colleagues”

Comments

  1. Severian says:

    Nothing he says is untoward or untrue, it is the height of arrogance for a limited number of the world’s population to decide what’s the “best” climate. But right on cue comes the hack Hansen, mister 3600 interviews but “they’re silencing me!!!” attention whore and partisan hired gun to wail about it. The mouthpiece for the hysterical climate change posse, front man in the attempts to shout down dissenters and push liberal socialist agendas masqueraded as science. Recipient of a $250,000 “grant” from the Heinz Foundation after he conveniently signed on to hatchet his employer, the Bush administration, for Kerry’s campaign, all the while wailing about “Big Oil” money corrupting other researchers. Hypocrite and “scientist” for hire.

  2. Lorica says:

    Sev?? Are you saying “Big Ketchup” bought and paid for this man??? =)) – Lorica

  3. Lorica says:

    “I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists,” Griffin told 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.”

    AMEN Brother!!!! Let’s go ask the Vikings living on Greenland if would rather have this climate of the climate they had 1000 years ago that made Greenland green. I know, I know that is just my opinion or the opinion of Viking farmers. Even tho the archieological evidence proves that Greenland was once a very fruitful farming community.

    “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 love this quote. That is a question I have too, but I fear I already know the answer. – Lorica

  4. Severian says:

    Not only the Vikings in Greenland Lorica, archaeologists are uncovering evidence, brought to light by the receding ice and glaciers in Europe, of settlements and mines and other human activity that flourished in areas that are still currently under ice or have only begun to reemerge. Funny, if these are the hottest times on record, how did these people manage to mine and live and work and hunt in these areas?

  5. Severian says:

    Also note, the “iceman” that was uncovered years ago after being exposed by retreating ice in the Alps was not wearing winter clothes. It got cold fast, but it was warm when he was there, a place only recently covered by a sheet of ice.

  6. Lorica says:

    I remember the Ice man Sev. There were some very cool write ups on him, and you are right. He wasn’t in winter garb when he died. I remember a curious quote from the article too, something about how much more advanced his tools were than scientists orginally thought someone like him would have. Hmmmmmm scientific consensus could be wrong???? Who’da thunk it. – Lorica

  7. Severian says:

    Never underestimate what human creativity can produce, even in “primitive” societies, scientific consensus be damned. For a mind boggling example:

    Antikythera Mechanism

    The more they learn about this device, a 2000 year old mechanical computer, the more impressive it becomes. Just recently they used a 3D Xray imager to uncover even more secrets.

  8. Severian says:

    Oops, didn’t link that right:

    Link

  9. Lorica says:

    I watched the special on the History channel on the Antikythera Mechanism several times. It is an awesome piece of equipment. It amazes me how inteligent our ancestors were. The legacy they left behind is wonderful and very impressive. – Lorica

  10. Severian says:

    I remember reading a Scientific American (I think) article years and years ago about a bronze protractor thing they found. It was for designing a kind of big siege engine made out of a big bow, the arms of the bow are stuck in huge bundles of twisted sinew. Used to throw rocks and big bolts and such. There is a relationship to solve for the diameter of the bundles of sinew, the length of the bow arms, and the length of the draw, that forms a cubic (3rd order) equation, difficult enough to solve without a computer and such that many people force a 2nd order fit to it. This protractor let you draw out the solution, you could pick any two and it’d solve for the 3rd, and let you optimize. A geometrical tool to solve a 3rd order polynomial equation, just frappin amazing. Designed and used by the Romans. Never, ever underestimate the creativity of the human mind.

  11. sunsettommy says:

    Griffin’s comments immediately drew stunned reaction from James Hansen, NASA’s top climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

    “It’s an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement,” Hansen told ABC News. “It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change.”

    Hansen believes Griffin’s comments fly in the face of well-established scientific knowledge that hundreds of NASA scientists have contributed to.

    “It’s unbelievable,” said Hansen. “I thought he had been misquoted. It’s so unbelievable.”

    James Hansen who has recently been exposed for using temperature data that are not verifiable and for cherrypicking such data.

    Saturday, May 26th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
    Quality Control – Jones and Hansen Style
    By Steve McIntyre

    LINK

    Then this:

    Sunday, May 27th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
    More ISO-2000 Weather Stations from Jones and Hansen
    By Steve McIntyre

    LINK

    The man has no care for honesty.

    The man is not a smart scientist for failing to check the quality of the weather stations.Phil Jones has based his career on them and he has been exposed for his shallow work.

    So many other AGW scientists fail to check the weather stations for quality of the data.

    SURFACE TEMPERATURE DATA are not viable for basing a political policy on.

  12. Severian says:

    And Hansen has the gall to complain about anyone else.

    So, to summarize:

    – The amount of warming, particularly the alleged “acceleration” in warming in recent decades is overstated due to measurement errors.

    – CO2 is just a minor part of the “greenhouse” effect, water vapor accounts to about 95% of the effect (and without this effect the earth would be an iceball). CO2 accounts for about 3.6% of the greenhouse effect, and man only provides about 3% of the CO2, so that means humans are only responsible for 0.18%, roughly, of all greenhouse warming.
    – Solar and other issues are likely to account for up to 2/3rds or more of the observed warming, not CO2 or the other greenhouse gases.

    So, CO2 isn’t the main contributor to warming, and of the small warming effect it provides, mankind’s contribution to that is minuscule, and even the amount of warming is overstated due to contamination of the measurement of ground temperature. Not to mention the fact that a single, simple metric like global average temperature is an idiotic thing to try and glean any useful information from with a system as chaotic, diverse, and complex as the Earth.

    But we’re supposed to wring our hands and wail that the sky is falling and pay thru the nose for imaginary benefits that will stifle the global economy, enrich a few corrupt politicians and carbon trader Ponzi scheme promoters, and drastically hurt the poor people and countries around the world. Yeah, makes sense to me. :-"

  13. sunsettommy says:

    The telling part is that Griffin has more education than “newshound” Hansen.

    Several degrees and was nearly finishing up his climate degree.Something Hansen does not have.

    It was discussed at Climate Audit.

    LOL

  14. Severian says:

    Well, he has more education, and lots more integrity.

    This whole thing about the contamination of the ground station data is seriously upsetting. And of course no one on the AGW bandwagon wants to admit it or look at it. Just look at their reaction to the fact that the satellite data didn’t correspond with the ground station data, they didn’t ask “which is correct” they assumed the ground station data was correct as it supported their arguments and immediately attacked and “adjusted” the satellite data.

    The information coming out on the ground stations needs to be looked into, all the locations of the ground stations are known, they all need to be looked at and documented, paint, location (particularly with respect to urban heat islands, buildings, asphalt, etc.) and the entire temperature record from them needs to be appropriately adjusted. Any bets that’s what will happen?

  15. sunsettommy says:

    Severian:

    The information coming out on the ground stations needs to be looked into, all the locations of the ground stations are known, they all need to be looked at and documented, paint, location (particularly with respect to urban heat islands, buildings, asphalt, etc.) and the entire temperature record from them needs to be appropriately adjusted. Any bets that’s what will happen?

    As far as I know only a few skeptical people have bothered to check the data quality.

    Warwick Hughes is one:

    Ongoing review of 1986 Jones et al papers compiling global temperature trends that now define “IPCC global warming”. By Warwick Hughes and other hard working contributors who remain anonymous.

    LINK

    Or this:

    The Jones et al 1990 Letter to Nature: a rebuttal of some key points
    Jones PD, Groisman PYa, Coughlan M, Plummer N, Wangl WC, Karl TR (1990) Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperatures over land. Nature 347:169-172 [Click links in table for scanned pages]

    LINK

    Enjoy.

  16. Great White Rat says:

    More global warming fraud and nonsense

    And this is from the very far left Guardian in Britain, if you can believe that.

    The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which is supposed to offset greenhouse gases emitted in the developed world by selling carbon credits from elsewhere, has been contaminated by gross incompetence, rule-breaking and possible fraud by companies in the developing world

    In other words, some folks have already figured out a way to use the smoke-and-mirrors of the carbon credit industry to line their pockets. Sort of like Al Gore did when he claimed to buy carbon credits by investing in his own company.

    One senior figure suggested there may be faults with up to 20% of the carbon credits – known as certified emissions reductions – already sold. Since these are used by European governments and corporations to justify increases in emissions, the effect is that in some cases malpractice at the CDM has added to the net amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

    So, if there were anything to the greenhouse gas scare at all, this scam is in some cases making the problem worse.

    Just another inconvenient truth inescapable fact of life. Now we can all just sit back and wait for the Goracle and his Apostles to tear into this CDM outfit, along with the MSM, right?
    :-w

  17. Severian says:

    Thanks for the references Sunsettommy. Depressing.

    Particularly things like this that really speak to the dishonesty of the AGW proponents:

    Certainly Jones et al make many “corrections” for the multitude of, steps, jumps and inhomogeneities that bedevil temperature data due to site moves and various station changes. To confuse this with their data being “adjusted for urbanization” is indeed a gross misapprehension. Page listing all Southern Hemisphere stations. Readers can judge for themselves the veracity of the Jones et al statement on p1216 of Jones et al 1986b, where they state that “… very few stations in our final data set come from large cities.” This glib and lulling statement is detached from the reality that 40% of their ~300 SH stations are cities with population over 50K.