Skip to content
Home » Blogs » Fred Bortz's blog

NASA's Griffin on Global Warming: Don't Worry, Be Happy

May 31, 2007

Fred Bortz's picture

All right, so my headline is designed to get your attention, but I almost couldn't believe what I heard on NPR's Morning Edition today. I just about choked on my toast when I heard what NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said about global warming in an interview to be aired tomorrow.

It's real, and it's our fault. But we're "arrogant" to say that its consequences are undesirable.

I could have gone to the NPR website to find a transcript and excerpt from it, but Prometheus has saved me the trouble.

To me the key exchange between NPR's Steve Inskeep and Griffin is this:

MR. INSKEEP : And I just wanted to make sure that I’m clear. Do you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?

MR. GRIFFIN: I have no doubt that global -- 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.

The worst thing about Griffin's statement is that it contains grains of truth, but it neglects larger issues.

Yes, climate changes have occurred over geologic time periods that go beyond what we are seeing or forecasting for the current century, but that is not the issue. The fact is--and Griffin concurs with this--that we humans are changing the climate, and not in a minor way.

It seems to me that the true arrogance here is Griffin's assumption that we should continue to change the climate without a thorough examination of the consequences.

That, in my view, goes beyond arrogance. The Greeks have a word for it: hubris.

Thanks to the ability for living organisms to adapt and species to evolve, life on Earth is remarkably fine-tuned to the environment. Rapid changes in environmental conditions, such as climate shifts, massive volcanism, or impacts from space, usually lead to mass extinctions and a different ecology.

Because of this ongoing adaptation, the most reasonable assumption is that today's climate and natural environment are nearly ideal for today's ecology, including the species known as Homo Sapiens. By changing the climate, we humans are moving the world away from its recent equilibrium at a rather rapid rate.

Is that good or bad? To use Mr. Griffin's word choice, it is arrogant to answer that one way or the other without looking at the evidence. And it is equally arrogant to ignore the signs of major problems once we have looked at that evidence.

Does Mr. Griffin deny the projections of spreading tropical diseases? Does he deny the projections of dramatic changes in local rainfall and growing conditions? Does he deny that continued adding of CO2 to the air will eventually cause enough melting of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets to raise sea levels about 10-20 meters? Some changes may take 300-400 years, and some will probably happen in this century. That's an instant on the geological time scale.

Are those changes good or bad for humanity or for the world as a whole?

Even Mr. Griffin doesn't deny that we should ask that question, so why does he call it arrogant when we decide to act in response to the answers we find?

Permalink

Comments

The (so called) science, as

May 29, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 5 weeks ago
Comment id: 30378

The (so called) science, as used by the IPCC, did not even include statisticians. The IPCC process was setup to document a foregone conclusion. If you have any mathematics and statistics background, it is OBVIOUS how flawed most of the studies have been. Correlation is not Causation. AGW is classic Pathological Science. It has happened before, and it will happen again. (Both G.W. and Path. Sci.)

Your $1000 is safe

June 19, 2007 by Fred Bortz, 2 years 2 weeks ago
Comment id: 24003

Carl Sanders,

The wording of your post shows limited understanding of science and the present evidence. That is not a bad thing, as long as you are willing to remedy that by learning more about science and looking seriously at the evidence. This post has a few suggestions.

First, your $1000 is safe, since science doesn't deal with "proof" or "truth." It deals with observation and evidence, which support hypotheses. When a large body of supporting evidence has been developed and the hypothesis shows predictive power, then hypothesis may reach the status of theory, as in the theory of evolution.

Since you don't have to make good on your bet, I hope that you spend a little of that $1000 to educate yourself about climate change.

There is an accumulating body of evidence, and a strong consensus has emerged that global warming is largely due to human activity. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made up of approximately 2000 of the world's leading climate scientists, has been reporting at approximate 5 year intervals since the late 1980s. The IPCC was set up to put the brakes on overreactions and bandwagon effects. Still, each report, written with appropriate scientific skepticism and caution, has shown greater consensus about global warming.

One volume of this year's report says that global warming is definitely occurring (>99% probability) and that human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, is responsible to a high level of certainty (>90%). Another volume projects changes that can be reasonably anticipated based on a large number of climate models. One of the least certain predictions is a roughly 20 cm. rise in sea level over the coming century. The "wild card" in that projection is the recently observed "dynamic melting" of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. If that leads to massive slippage of ice from land into the ocean, the sea level rise may be catastrophic for coastal communities around the world.

I recommend that you read my reviews of weather and climate books dating back nearly eight years (click here). The worst case scenarios of 1999-2000 are much more plausible today.

After reading the reviews, try some of the books. If you want to use some of your $1000 to thank me, buy the books through the links on my site. Or, better yet, donate the $1000 to an organization whose mission is educating people about global warming and what can be done about it. I'm sure that Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society has funds to support environmental educational activities.

I'll bet you didn't think I'd take you seriously, did you?

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

P.S.: About the temperature change in the polar regions

June 19, 2007 by Fred Bortz, 2 years 2 weeks ago
Comment id: 24004

Global warming is not uniform, and it is much greater in the polar regions, especially the arctic. See The Weather Makers by Flannery and Field Notes From a Catastrophe by Kolbert for details on the warming of arctic regions and their consequences.

Also, I meant 30 cm. rather than 20 cm. in my previous post.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

I will give a thousand dollars away for PROOF

June 19, 2007 by Carl Sanders (not verified), 2 years 2 weeks ago
Comment id: 24002

To all the so called scientists and believers of man made global warming I issue this challenge. Show me scientific PROOF that man is causing the current rise in global temperatures and I will issue you a check for One Thousand Dollars. Its as simple as that.
But realize this: it is IMPOSSIBLE to isolate man as the cause of global warming. In order to conduct test scientists have to ISOLATE the variables in the test. Given our limited knowledge of all the factors that contribute to global warming, that is currently, and in all likelihooh will remain, an impossibility.
Ask yourself why the ice in the artic regions would be melting with only a small change in air temperature. Just one factor to consider.

Biosphere

June 9, 2007 by Tibor Kiss (not verified), 2 years 3 weeks ago
Comment id: 23908

“The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best is now.” Chinese proverb.

http://biosphere.freehostia.com/WordPress/

Americana

June 3, 2007 by Thomas Lee Elifritz (not verified), 2 years 4 weeks ago
Comment id: 23838

From the context and the comments, I just never realized that American scientists were so dumb. This goes well beyond just an ignorant American public, this strikes at the core of American intelligentsia. I seems no matter what the stature of American intellect, Americans of all stripes and colors are just plain stupid. They elected Bush, twice, go figure.

Go ahead, make my day, falsify my hypothesis.

Scientific consensus is different from what a survey says

June 3, 2007 by Fred Bortz, 2 years 4 weeks ago
Comment id: 23836

I thank Sean O. for his contribution, even though I disagree with it.

Here's why: Sean disputes that there is a scientific consensus on the causes of global warming by citing one survey: "a recent study of scientists only 39% felt that carbon dioxide reductions were a priority."

First we need to separate the issue of science from politics and policy. In this particular survey of some group of scientists, only 39% say CO2 reduction is a priority. Whether it is a priority is a political and policy decision, not a scientific conclusion.

But to get to Sean's main question: Is there a scientific consensus?

The best way to answer that question is to examine the way the current consensus came about. It came about in the same way as scientific consensus always does. Scientists published their findings, and other scientists challenged their findings or suggested others. They allowed the evidence and analysis to speak for itself.

Over time, several climate models gained credibility by their ability to match the data to new observations. They were shown to have good predictive ability. None was perfect, and each had its set of climate conditions in which it proved quite valuable. Collectively, they are a phenomenal resource for helping us to figure out what lies ahead.

By changing the inputs to these models to reflect more or less CO2 in the atmosphere, researchers were able to compare what the climate of the past decades would have been without anthropogenic CO2. The results were striking—even compelling. They all revealed that the most of the recent warming can be attributed to human activities.

That finding has political implications, which is why the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change that includes leading scientists from around the world. The IPCC put the scientific consensus in terms that policy makers could use. The IPCC did not fund the research or create the consensus. It only collected the research and described the consensus.

This year's IPCC report states that the world is definitely warming and that it is highly probable (>90%) that human activities are the cause.

Another volume of the report describes the likely consequences of that warming. When I read about those consequences, I sincerely hope that policy makers make CO2 reduction a top political and social priority. It is totally irrelevant that a single survey of a group of scientists might place the priority lower.

Furthermore, that survey certainly doesn't negate the scientific consensus. Only new research can do that. Unfortunately for those who hope to get away without changing their lifestyles, most research is strengthening the consensus, though a few reports raise useful questions.

Those questions ought to be pursued. But the stakes are too high to delay formulation of policies while we wait for additional results.

Fred Bortz
Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com)
and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

He is neither right nor wrong

June 3, 2007 by Sean O (not verified), 2 years 4 weeks ago
Comment id: 23835

I run a site on global warming (www.globalwarming-factorfiction.com). It is designed to try to give both sides of the issue, I think I do a fairly good job of it since WSJ.com has referenced me a couple of times.

I think we need to look more closely at Mr. Griffin's words. If GW is caused by nefarious human activity than we should do something about it. But if GW is caused by the natural changes of global climate, then we need to live with it and adapt. There is a high likelihood that the latter is true and many climate scientists think humans are not the root cause. In fact, in a recent study of scientists only 39% felt that carbon dioxide reductions were a priority (http://globalwarming-factorfiction.com/2007/06/02/they-call-this-a-conse...).

We simply do not know enough about our climate to take dramatic action on this issue.

So much for carrying over....

May 31, 2007 by Dave Huntsman (not verified), 2 years 5 weeks ago
Comment id: 23819

By that I mean.....Mike's relationships in Congress has tended to be bipartisan; as can be seen, for example, by watching the March 15th hearing before the full House Science Committee (available on that website).

There has been talk that he might survive the transition to a new, possibly Democratic, Administration, because of that. However, it is as a practical matter now impossible - from today - for any Democratic President to carry him over.

There are also Republicans who now would not want to do so; thinking particularly of, for example, John McCain, and Rudy Guliani. (And my favorite, Michael Bloomberg....if he were running, which unfortunately for the country, he is not).

I find Mike's statements, and even worse, his attitude, to be unbelievable. No criticism of Exxon Mobil and their well-financed disinformation campaign to be able to pollute without limits - something which is effecting the planet terribly (as today's report by NASA scientist James Hansen shows; and as Griffin's boss, President Bush, directly implied today). But criticism of attempts to rain in the negative effects of our activities as 'arrogant' is something I personally didn't think Mike was capable of. I still find it difficult to believe.

If he were an engineer applying to work for me and demonstrated that arrogant contempt for facts and for the safety of humanity, I probably wouldn't hire him.

And... He questions it why?

May 31, 2007 by Eric - eh. (not verified), 2 years 5 weeks ago
Comment id: 23818

So the rest of his statement (the begining part), to me, is nothing more than build-up to his thesis - that of trying to find a ground where conclusions about the effects of climate change are not matters that humans should concern themselves with. He posits a large percentage of error for a single degree of change - then says that the value (with a large percentage of error) has been "pretty well nailed down" to being the result of man.

If this were 1997 and people were saying "oh, we don't know for sure" - I might agree. We are now in 2007 and frankly the evidence keeps mounting that it is a continual change - one happening even faster than the models predict.

If we were to take his statements at face value, that we cannot make guesses about the future based on current activities and past knowledge - and that because one's view of the climate is relative one cannot make claims of a "bad" climate future, then we should just remove ourselves from all positions of reason. Waiting for the elevator to arrive at my floor after pushing the button now becomes more a matter of luck than statistics and logic. If I am waiting for over 1 hour for it - I am just unlucky (or dumb). Without being able to reason out that the elevator is out of service based on my experience, I might end up waiting all day.

Perhaps the last bit above is trite, but you get my point. We CAN make statements that warming is "bad" for us - we have the evidence to prove it and Fred does a great job of outlining some of the issues. Heck, on a personal note, I certainly don't want any africanized honey bees or fire ants in my backyard! (my climate being the only protection from their vicious ways)

Eric

Nasa Chief Questions Urgency of Global Warming

May 31, 2007 by Fred's Conservative Friend (not verified), 2 years 5 weeks ago
Comment id: 23814

But what about the rest of his statement:

"... I understand that the bulk of scientific evidence accumulated supports the claim that we’ve had about a one degree centigrade rise in temperature over the last century to within an accuracy of 20 percent... 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..."

My reading of the article is that in his analysis, at best research confirms that over the last 100 years we have experienced maybe a 1 degree C increase in temperature (and even this conclusion is only within a 20% certainty) and that recent findings suggest that this modest increase is likely partially the result of manmade activity, but to suggest that we have any ability to have a meaningful long-term influence on climate change is not supported, as climate change has occured over millions of years due to natural fluctuations, and will likely continue to change.

By the way the article is entitled, "NASA Chief Questions Urgency of Global Warming."

For the entire story see: www.npr.org

Griffin's red herring

May 31, 2007 by Fred Bortz, 2 years 5 weeks ago
Comment id: 23817

Mike, my conservative friend, I'm always glad when you share your viewpoints here. It helps people understand a different point of view, even if they disagree with it.

In the paragraph you quote, Griffin seems to be protecting his right flank for the sin of admitting that global warming has a large anthropogenic component. The million years argument is a red herring, for the following reason.

If people's actions can have a large contribution to global warming, then changing those actions can also have a large contribution to avoiding the worst consequences, regardless of what the rest of nature is doing. Griffin accepts the premise of this statement, but simply says it's arrogant to call the consequences bad.

Specifically, the last 100 years have demonstrated the impact of human activities to a small but quantifiable amount. Using the best data and a variety of thoroughly vetted models, climatologists are able to attribute those changes, to the greatest extent, to excess CO2. Griffin accepts those models and their results as valid.

The same models predict that business as usual will lead to much larger changes in the coming century. A corollary is that limiting greenhouse gas emissions will minimize those changes.

Griffin doesn't dispute the scenarios, but just says it is arrogant for us to presume they are bad news. If he advocated action, he'd lose his job.

It will be interesting to watch him dance as the bullets fly at him from both directions.

Stay tuned.

Fred Bortz
Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com)
and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)



About us

Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.