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?