Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Some Look at Global Warming and Ask "Why?" I Look at Global Warming and Ask "Why Not?"

The Bush Regime continues to astound. Remember when NASA was a leader in science and technology - remember when it was THE dream job for high school kids who did well in physics?

Not surprisingly, the Bush Regime has dumbed things down a few notches.

Last week, NPR interviewed NASA administrator Michael Griffin - the man in charge of NASA. Here's what he has to say about the fact of global warming:
I'm aware that global warming exists. 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. I'm also aware of recent findings that appear to have nailed down — pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade.

So far, so good. Even a Bush appointee must face reality once in a while.

But what makes Griffin special is what he does with reality. To coin a phrase, while most of us look at anthropogenic global warming and ask "Why?", Bush appointee Michael Griffin looks at anthropogenic global warming and asks "Why not?".

When asked whether he has any doubt that this is a problem we need to wrestle with, Griffin envisions a world where Arkansas is on the Gulf Coast and Siberia grows pineapples:
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.

Bravo, Mr. Griffin! Indeed, who are we to judge such things? If our activities cause Florida to flood, who are we to say that's a bad thing? If our activities cause Africa's drought and famine to spread, maybe that will all work out for the better.

In climate change, there will be winners and there will be losers. Conventional wisdom suggests that it is unwise to unleash forces we are able to neither control nor understand. Conventional wisdom says that starvation, flooding, and dislocation of millions of people will be a bad thing, but, really, isn't labelling them "bad" just an arrogant value judgment?

Blessed with Griffin's insight, I look back on other instances where man has sought to ameliorate man's impact on the world, and, released from my arrogance, I see things in a new light. Why did that arrogant bitch Rachel Carson assume we would want a world without DDT killing off our birds and fishes? Who was the arrogant ass who interfered with our pollution of Lake Erie, so that now we can't light it on fire anymore? Indeed, who are those arrogant anti-nuke wusses who prevent us from unleashing a nuclear winter on this warming planet?

It's time for the arrogant creeps who seek to minimize man's impact on the globe to step aside and let us play with the environment as much as we like. Why must we assume that catastrophic change will necessarily be a catastrophe?

Labels: , ,


Anonymous mainstream said...

Here's the fundamental problem:

Genesis 1:28

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

This true arrogance extends way beyond the Bible - with the exception of a few cultures (American Indian, etc) human culture has taken this Genesis view.

Will we wake up too late? I fear it is already too late. The momentum of climate change some experts contend may start accelerating upon itself.

This in combination with the momentum of economic development in the third world already initiated, especially in India and China, has and will push the Earth beyond the tipping point....

6/05/2007 7:48 AM  
Blogger les said...

Teh Stupid, it burrrnnss.

6/05/2007 9:13 AM  
Anonymous travelingal said...

I wonder what Rachael Carson would think of all the millions of children who have died from malaria as a result of not having DDT to kill of the disease bearing mosquitoes in Africa. All I say with regard to any environmental crisis is we need to be careful of the unintended consequences of our actions.

6/05/2007 4:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

have you ever heard of malathion or BT larvacides? They are quite cheap and effective in killing mosquitoes and don't endanger wildlife or linger in the environment for.... forever, like DDT.

6/05/2007 5:19 PM  
Blogger les said...

tavelingal, you don't apparently know that not everyone is stupid. DDT is approved for use in some countries and some situations. Campaigning to stop it's unregulated use and broadcast spraying--not even the best way to use it--is not equivalent to condemning children to malaria. Try some homework.

6/05/2007 5:53 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home