Why not listen to what Michael Griffin says and give it some careful thought? Climate study should be a science, not a religion.

Posted: 06 July 2007 00:43:46

The NASA guy has a point.

Posted: 06 July 2007 00:47:21

Mr.Griffin's arguement is irrelevant, since although the current climate conditions might not be optimal in different aspects (that we would neeed to define), they are the conditions that human is accustomed to, has invested and adapted in order to survive. Sudden changes, though not necessarily catastrophic for the human kind, will require huge investment and possibly vast rellocations of people in order to survive.

Posted: 06 July 2007 02:00:40

I'm very glad to hear someone with some credibility help expose this "Global Warming" fiasco.
When we are told that cow farts are partly responsible for the world's climate change, anyone with any sense should realise that some of these so called experts have lost the plot. The "experts" must presume that cows have only started farting recently.
Any exposure of this fallicy is most welcome.

Posted: 06 July 2007 07:10:26

Well he is quite right isn't he? Who knows we may be heading for wetter deserts and a bit of warm weather for the UK for a change. Is that really so bad? The thing to keep a lid on is waste of all kinds and I don't regard gases as waste. Too many people are "Scientists" i.e. are not Scientists at all. As Einstein said never forget in the midst of your equations that you are working for humanity. The climate models have been tweaked and tweaked and they still get it wrong, something is fundamentally wrong with the way we look at matter for example, and it doesn't get any more fundamental than this. See bodgeitandscarper.org ..... now this is the beginning of a real Scientific method. Blind "Scientists" need not apply.

Posted: 06 July 2007 07:36:28

Professor Rowan-Robinson is treating science with contempt. Proof through repeated assertion is not science, it is an instrument of Newspeak.
There is not universal consensus. Even if there were consensus, consensus can be wrong. The good professor should not ape Caccini and Bellarmino for history may well make an ass of him.
What we need is more data, analysis and objective, detached review (as opposed to consensus-reinforcing peer review), not the vilification of dissent and posturing to the media.

Posted: 06 July 2007 07:51:11

I agree with Nasa,s stance,The planet is evolving and we are a product of evolution.Whatever we do is just the next evolutionary step. So lets go for it! learn explore use and more learning,the knowledge we gain will out axcelerate the destruction and we will eventually put it right!

Posted: 06 July 2007 08:04:04

The amount of agitation generated and hot air emitted by the Global Warmers in condemnation of this heresy will probably increase the global temperature by at least 5 degrees C by the year 2025

Posted: 06 July 2007 09:12:20

Griffin like a vast number of other scientists and researchers do not agree that the human culture should start wringing their hands and stop driving because the car hating brigade at greenpeace have started a C02 is killing us hysterical stampede.
This is typically English hysteria. one of the smallest countries in the world telling the world you must stop driving you must stop smoking you must stop hunting you must stop drinking and so it goes on TAKE ON NOTICE this country is on a self denial trip.
GET A LIFE AND MOVE TO AMERICA

Posted: 06 July 2007 09:18:08

I'd take a NASA's chiefs advice over a collage professor any day.
NASA obviously have their own scientific data and reasons for making this statement. Science doesn't work by asking people to retract comments they don't agree with. The global warming debate is still on, and frankly with the forecasters unable to tell if it really will rain from day to day we may never know the real story with the climate. His whole point is climate change has been happening on earth from day one. And since when do 'we the people' trust and believe our governments on every issue. Can't people see that this issue is being used by governments as a popular banner to gain support!? When humanity gets like this it's like a global lynch mob demanding moral justice, only mobs don't think and end up causing more problems than they solve.

Posted: 06 July 2007 09:20:04

It might be better if Professor Rowan-Robinson delivered the evidence that Dr Michael Griffin may be incorrect rather than asserting that he is definitely wrong. Public opinion should not be the guide to academic comment.
Dr Griffin's comment is the most sensible I have heard about global warming for a long time, and it didn't seem to be attached to funding...

Posted: 06 July 2007 09:22:13

Dr Michael Griffin has got it right, the climate change gravy train is becoming a faith based religious movement whos devotees keep repeating the mantras 'Nasty Humans' 'Nasty Capitalists'.
Rational argument seems to take a back seat when it comes to green issues and I for one object to sanctimonios 'green' fascists telling me what to do.
Well done Mr Griffin

Posted: 06 July 2007 09:22:55

Sirs,
We all know that the global warming thing caused by man's activities is politically driven, not scientifically driven. This automatically tells us it's a lie, because politicians can do nothing else.
In plain English it's all a load of rubbish created to raise taxes, create an artificial problem and build an industry around it, so that scam mongers can make lots of money out of silly muggins Joe Public.
They must think I was born yesterday!!
Have a nice day and just put your foot on the throttle 'cos it ain't gonna make one atom of difference.
Adrian Clegg

Posted: 06 July 2007 09:23:30

I am gladdened that at least some sane people are exposing the global warming for what it is - a massive fraud on an unparalleled scale that caters to diverse selfish motives both economic, polical.
I am proud that at least some of the top minds in the world are not afraid to speak out the truth. The mass hysteria created by the unfounded scare of global warming might end up doing enormous harm to the scientific community if it is allowed to carry on.
I would request other scientists to expose the truth and condemn the focus on global warming.

Posted: 06 July 2007 09:36:44

What an absolute idiot and this guy is in charge of nasa!There's no chance of getting back to the moon!

Posted: 06 July 2007 09:49:08

Good for Dr Griffin. I for one am sick of the "Global Warming" and now "Climate Change" bandwagon. Yes, the climate is changing and part of that change is bound to be influenced by man, but the degree to which it is cannot be determined. If it was just 10% then draconian measures that could hamper the third world's development would be futile anyway. Better to prepare for, rather than try to prevent the inevitable.

Posted: 06 July 2007 09:56:27

I strongly agree with Dr Michael Griffin.It seems to me that alot of academics are wanting huge amounts of funding for farcical so called investigations into global warming rubbish.be careful which mind numbing newspapers you read.This subject is just one big gravy train which is now used by the powers that be to tax everything that purports to making these false claims.

Posted: 06 July 2007 10:04:45

Why should a scientist withdraw remarks that actually have a value in questioning the theory of Global Warming. There is no balancing argument and the sheer mention of someones credibility due to these comments is a disgrace to science. Everyone has a right to their own views.....even the head of Nasa who is an individual scientist.
GET OFF THE BAND WAGAON AND BACK TO THE SCIENCE LAB

Posted: 06 July 2007 10:05:59

The Earth has been, in the past, both colder and hotter without human intervention.I think it is bigheaded of man to think he can make more than a modest change to conditions on earth.Rather than spend effort on trying to prevent warming he should spend his effort in adjusting to that change.I suggest he moves to higher ground and release the lower ground for food production not fuel production.

Posted: 06 July 2007 10:08:58

Thanks very much to the Head of NASA by providing a realistic opinion. Those who are "disturbed" "alarmed" or "concerned" are always those with fixed views who tend to have a significant business or educational interest. We continue to need balanced views on something as critical as saving the planet. Keep calm, offer your alternative views in as concise a way you can. Vociferous replies are not welcome and offer nothing to the discussion except hot air.

Posted: 06 July 2007 10:20:25

We live in a climate where there's no debate. Dissent from the one true opinion is simply not to be tolerated. There is no debate.

Posted: 06 July 2007 10:23:01

Oh dear Michael Griffin has committed heresy. He has dared to offer a different opinion. He should lose his job for having an independent view!

Posted: 06 July 2007 10:25:25

Michael Griffin has spent too much time on space and not enough on what is very obvious to us all on this small planet - earth ... Don't bury your nose in space ... look at what's going on around us HERE.

Posted: 06 July 2007 10:28:29

Michael Griffin is I believe expressing a view held by many. It is far too simplistic to consider that climate change and global warming are as many seem to believe the result of Human activities during the 20th Century. Over the millenia planet earth has seen its climate change many times and there is no reason to believe that this will not continue. The important question I believe is whether we should attempt to intervene in this natural process.
We should be encouraging debate and welcoming opinions however varied

Posted: 06 July 2007 10:47:18

Sorry, Prof. Rowan-Robinson, I disagree.
As an ecologist, I would remind you that human beings evolved during an ice-age. The natural warming that followed was probably the most important event in the history of the human race. No doubt that warming had an immense impact on early human populations but, almost certainly in response to the hard times that followed the loss of the 'ideal' ice-age climate, the result was the invention of agriculture.
The notion that continued climate change is "the most significant threat to humanity" is unscientific nonsense. Certainly, it is a threat to the status quo. But the human species will adapt, just as it has done since the ice reteated. No doubt the changes will be a challenge for some - and an opportunity for others.
What we need to do is focus resources on adapting to climate change. Slowing down the process would be beneficial because it would give us more time to adapt.
To criticize Dr Griffin for stating what is obvious to any thinking life scientist serves no useful purpose.

Posted: 06 July 2007 10:53:59

Griffin's coments seem sensible.

Posted: 06 July 2007 11:01:15

I thought science was open to differing opinions. Apparently not here in the UK.
Is this the start of another Inquisition? Recant Griffin, else Rowan-Robinson will send you to the stake!
Galileo was also asked to recant and agree with the "majority opinion" of all learned people that the Earth did not move.
Now Griffin may not be a giant in science, but that is not for us to decide.
Science is not decided by the opinion of the 2200 scientists in bed with the IPCC, nor is it decided by the remainder of the roughly 40 million scientists on Earth. It is decided by Nature itself.
Good on you, Dr. Griffin! Keep up the spirit of freedom and open-mindedness in the pursuit of understanding!
Shame on you Dr Rowan-Robinson! Remember your youth and the enthusiasm you have for learning from Nature as it is, not as you would want it to be.

Posted: 06 July 2007 11:05:54

I agree with Nasa, nothing has yet been proved as to the cause of climate change and deliberatly misreading the statistics to 'prove' your point of view is not science, all we should being doing as a raise is ensuring we dont pollute the world and adapting to the changes which is what we have been doing rather well for millenia.

Posted: 06 July 2007 11:16:01

Debate on the subject of climate change is both desirable and responsible, but it can also be mis-used as a prop for appalling greed. The "developed" world today is to the environment as the cigarette companies of the last century were to lung cancer - any doubt, no matter how small, is an excuse to ignore the issue - dooming millions of subsistence farmers to drought and starvation. What seems a shrill, overbearing response to Dr. Griffin is in fact a sensible "shot across the bows" to any who would use mis-use his comments to justify fiddling while Rome burns.

Posted: 06 July 2007 11:16:45

Dr Griffin is only articulating a view many must be coming round to as the climate change juggernaut gathers momentum.
It may have been Newton that first pointed out that any system left to it's own devices will seek a minimum energy state by the most direct and efficient means.
And then we have the second law of thermodynamics which in lay persons terms states that:-
You can't win
You can never win

And finally, you can't change the rules.



The implication for climate change must be that the more mankind attempts to change things the more energy will be added to the system thereby compounding the problem.



Perhaps if we just leave it alone it will go away...





Phil J

U/K

Posted: 06 July 2007 11:17:07

Rational argument should never be repressed, does anybody ever mention these days that Mars is warming too? - And that NASA has the best data available.

Posted: 06 July 2007 11:30:44

I knew that a lot of fanatics had nailed their colours to the "Man-Made Climate Change" flagpole, but I hadn't realised that anyone who came out with an alternative viewpoint would be castigated quite as much as is apparent here.
The birth of yet another new religion it would seem.

Posted: 06 July 2007 11:45:52

Am I the only person that read this properly?
He never said there was no climate change, in fact he actually said "have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists".
What he eluded to however is that human intervention might not be sensible, and that the climate we are moving to might actually be an improvement.
Either way, humans will try and fix it, so I expect it all to go horribly wrong within a 100 years, knowing us we'll end up having another ice-age.
And here was me, hoping the ice caps would melt, at least my house would then have a sea view.

Posted: 06 July 2007 11:57:18

After scanning through the comments a certain question comes to mind;
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PRO CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTIST AND A FORTUNE TELLER?
Answer; the more money you pay a fortune teller the better the forecast whereas the scientist just wants more money to prove he his right.

Posted: 06 July 2007 12:12:40

I agree both with Dr Griffin and most of the people above. The climate is changing, no doubt - as it has always changed over the millenia. The eco-Nazis are using this as a way to beat us up for our lifestyles and the Governments (especially the British Government) see it as a cash cow to be milked dry 'for our own good'. It is seen as a crime to doubt their eco-mantras, it is so refreshing to see a reasoned argument.

Posted: 06 July 2007 12:15:35

I have to say Dr Michael Griffin has a very valid point and I think most people agree the planet goes through cycles and is possibly on the change now .Personally I don’t think there is anything we can do about it , I also think it is being used by European governments as an excuse to jack up non entity Tax’s Especially Britain.
It is totally refreshing to see someone coming out with the truth , and it’s a pity more scientists do not have the wherewithal to go against government and trendy non idea’s of the decade

Posted: 06 July 2007 12:19:27

Rowan-Robinson should withdraw his comments immediately. Climate change will undoubtedly have both positive and negative effects. The scientific assessment of these effects is at the very earliest stage, and the debate should allow for the widest exchange of views. It is outrageous that a scientist should seek to restrict this debate.
Andrew Turvey, England

Posted: 06 July 2007 12:19:41

Lily argrave - if it were not for people like mike griffin we wouldnt have any clue about all this and you have the gaul to say, 'take a look at whats going on down here'. we need space science, a hell of a lot more than we need narrow minded liberals like you.

Posted: 06 July 2007 12:20:18

It's not about preventing debate, it's about a responsability not to mislead the public (yourselves) and lend credibility to irresponsible and selfish behaviour.
The climate isn't changing naturally, and the change is occurring on a time scale never seen before (nothing even remotely comparable to the end of the last ice age).
We should be worried about food security, particularly for those people not affluent enough to afford access to the kind of mindless debate generated here. Who do you think NASA is funded by? Try to look beyond the obvious and try to be a little more selfless. Don't keep driving because you're too fat to exercise.

Posted: 06 July 2007 12:21:18

I dont see anything untoward in Dr Griffin's statement, but ... This planet is all we have for now and we should take all measures to protect it. So, if the debate on climate change brings about an awareness and understanding of the fragility of nature, let both threads of the debate continue. Perhaps those with a similar view to that of Dr Griffin's should not be treated as pariahs but should be given a voice too.

Posted: 06 July 2007 12:23:41

While climate change may have happened many times across the millennia, this is the first time that mankind has been implicated in the process, and the first time that so many stand in harm's way.
Handy isn't it, that the bickering about data, definitive proof and colossal conspiracies gives you camouflage behind which to hide your moral depravity?
No doubt you continue to drive your cars, take cheap flights and buy meals saturated in food miles. 'I'll just wait for the proof to come; no need to think about changing my lifestyle before then,' you say to yourself.
Meanwhile the Earth keeps warming, icecaps keep melting, sea levels keep rising, deserts keep expanding and hurricane seasons grow in ferocity and duration. What do the lives of a few billion in the developing world matter anyway?
On behalf of these people, we can't afford to deceive ourselves that mankind shouldn't interfere with this process: we've been managing ecosystems since the birth of our species

Posted: 06 July 2007 12:23:50

Given that the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists, led by those appointed internationally by the governments of the major countries, tell us there is a 90+% probability that global warming is caused by human activity, am I alone in being disturbed at the apparent certainty expressed by the authors of the majority of the comments above that they know better?
The climate is changing now and the effects are being felt with increasing regularity worldwide. If there is to be any chance of avoiding global catastrophe then the world's scientists need to pull together for our common cause. This, surely, is what the criticism of Griffin's comments are all about.

Posted: 06 July 2007 12:28:25

Dr Griffen keep voicing informed opinion we need to hear a balanced debate.
We all know that politicians and scientists are exacting control and wealth (tax & funding) from so called evidence (based on computer models with so many assumptions the true position is unknown)of global warming. Around the world more of humanity is destroyed by pestilence (disease,war & despotic politicians than global warming ever will. Let those who maintain they have our best interests at heart concentrate their efforts on these issues, and good practices in lifestyle will look after the climate. Less imposition by the Nanny State and more about encouraging people to adopt lifestyle choices that benefit all.

Posted: 06 July 2007 12:51:26

A word to Chris Bramley, in response to his comment:

"Meanwhile the Earth keeps warming, icecaps keep melting, sea levels keep rising, deserts keep expanding and hurricane seasons grow in ferocity and duration".
Virtually every 'fact'he gives is untrue. While the melting of the northern sea is well-recorded, NASA released a paper in the last fortnight showing that at least 20% of this is caused by particulate pollution. We need more accuracy and less bullying.

Posted: 06 July 2007 13:06:46

While Griffin has a point and should not be shackled I think that much of the reaction here is a sad indictment of the views people have of science. It isn't 'magic', it can't deliver certainty but at least tells you so (unlike public opinion and politics). Science is not well funded so to tar all scientists as money grabbing is ridiculous.
The vast, vast majority of informed opinion is that current climate change pace and level is man-made. It may be true that trying to counter it is completely futile, but the truth is that if we must settle for this future, the population of our small planet (in human terms anyway) will probably have to fall massively. England will undoubtedly still be wet, but at least the rain will be warmer.

Posted: 06 July 2007 13:16:45

So-called Climate Change is a Hypothesis and before it can be considered a Theory it must be able to predict (or postdict) and explain all climate events - past, present and future. The Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, Mesozoic Era etc. are observed in the fossil record but the causes are considerably hazier. It seems that emotion and mass ignorance of scientific method have robbed us of balance. The Scientific Method has provided us with so much. Yet now many are running around like headless dodoes in blind support of as yet unproven hypotheses. In a similar way, in fact, to the Vox Populi suppression of nuclear energy, which, if global warming is caused by us, would have avoided the problem.

Posted: 06 July 2007 13:54:11

Let us not forget that Dr Griffin was appointed by the White House. Does anyone really believe they would appoint someone who would disagree with them on crucial positions ie scepticism re global warming?

Posted: 06 July 2007 14:05:43

When I was at school in the early 90's we had lessons about the dangers of climate change beginning to effect us in the 21st Centuary. It's here now and it is going to happen. The U.N. scientific advisery board have said as much (oooh only several hundred experts, but hey it's ok we have one person from NASA disagreeing). I feel sorry for all the people sticking their heads in the ground, desperate for anyone with some credibility say stroke their hair and say 'It will be all right'. I don't really care because the effects will not inconvenience me. People in the third world will die in their millions. But hey, they should be used to getting screwed over by us in the west by now so who cares right?

Posted: 06 July 2007 14:19:42

I think it was irresponsible of Professor Michael Rowan-Robinson to make such suggestions about climate change. Doesn't he realise that a whole new range of taxes are dependant on so called global warming. Of course we could solve many of the CO2 emmissions problems by developing hydrogen fuels, if the oil companies would allow governments to go in that direction... which of course they wont until they have to. I heard on the radio the other morning that the planet was 5 degrees warmer than now a million years ago. What caused that d'you suppose, farting Dinosaurs?

Posted: 06 July 2007 14:25:43

In response to Cloudsley Shovell;
No you are not alone in your concern. Cynicism towards Global Warming, or even outright derision, seems to be a growing sport today. I've never heard of labnews before but I would have expected some more informed comments, rather than the trite "climate change is about politics" rhetoric I've read here.
Thank god for New Scientist.

Posted: 06 July 2007 14:39:31

So the man at the head of NASA has an opinion_ about the effects of climate change on humanity, not that it is happening. Have opinions been banned even if you acknowledge climate change?

Posted: 06 July 2007 14:58:45

I am glad to read that a lot of people too have the "common sense" to see through the farce of "man made" climate change / global warming.
The notion of man made climate change is not the view held by the majority of the scientific community. Shouting out louder is not proof that your's is the voice of the majority or that you are right. The farce is being propagated for selfish gains so most of the views heard on the media are of those who are aggressively pushing their views using quite significant amounts of money and they are doing so because they plan to reap in huge returns!

Posted: 06 July 2007 20:37:01

Thing is we're running out of the fossil fuels anyways so looks like were going green whether we like it or not so why worry

Posted: 06 July 2007 20:41:53

Honest science should never be afraid of debate and I am appalled by the attempted censorship of Dr Griffin's opinions.
Such behaviour and lack of willingnes to even discuss shortcomings in the current simplistic 'orthodoxy' of cause, effect and solution simply makes me increasingly question the honesty and integrity of many global warming proponents.

Posted: 06 July 2007 20:48:22

Note the caption below the photo in the story: "This image of the Earth taken from the moon threw into stark contrast the fragility of our planet. Now the NASA chief suggests we should take no action to protect our climate." Diversity of well-informed opinions should not be considered optional for science or any scientific publication. Crass attempts to villify non-conforming viewpoints like the one cited above are disheartening and embarrassing.

Posted: 06 July 2007 23:51:48

I have no idea if Griffin is right, or if the other guy is right - let's be frank, nobody knows.
But it's better to hear every opinion and angle, rather than have people sit on the fence and say nothing at all.
I think we need more diversity in opinion and thought. Global Warming has become an industry, and even industry needs competition to flourish.

Posted: 07 July 2007 00:39:23

Wow, now we might be able to live without someone in a Prius growling at us!!!
Nice one Dr Griffin!!!!!!!!

Posted: 07 July 2007 09:04:16

Well the world may be warming up (not this summer round Manchester, England !) and the data from Hawaii are acurate and convincing in showing that the CO2 level is inching up each year to a current high of ca 370 ppm.
What I as a scientist want to know are answers to these four questions.
1.What property of the air is changed by small increases in a gas that is present at 370 ppm.
2. What is this property called and how is it measured.
3. What units are used in the measurment? (measures without units are NOT science. Lord Kelvin said that, not me)
4. Who did the measurements, where was it published, what were the results.
I do not want to hear about infrared absorption as this will be swamped by water vapour in the air. I do not want to hear about "greenhouses" which work by restricting convection. I want equations which have numbers and units that make science and sense.
Finally, heat effects are governed by the laws of thermodynamics. For a given heat input (kJ) to a given mass of gas (kg) there will be an adiabatic rise in the temperature of that mass of K degrees. This will be governed by the measured and published values of the Heat Capacity (Cp) of the gases (kJ/kg/K) or for gas mixtures their algebraic sum. Cp values for gases in air are much of a muchness. The concentration of CO2 at the 370 ppm or even double that will not have any effect. Who changed the laws of thermodynamics?

Posted: 12 July 2007 15:52:32

I've written something more detailed to the Editor. My main point, as an FRAS, is that "maybe Dr Griffin knows something our Academic doesn't". I heard the previous President's Presidential address where she commented that the earth's magnetic field was decaying rapidly and will reverse (soon), and already some satellites near the S magnetic pole are incapacitated due to the extra incoming radiation. That magnetic decay factor will dwarf anything being discussed on CO2, to say nothing of a major volcanic eruption.
Also, how can the warming on other planets and satellites in recent years be man-induced?
Population size and expectation(s)is a factor nobody seems to want to discuss.
Mike
FRAS

Posted: 12 July 2007 22:38:30

Professor Rowan-Robinson said: 'I was disturbed to read the comments by the Head of NASA, Michael Griffin, on global warming and climate change.

The Prof needs to do more research and stop putting his pray rug down in front of the holy grail of climate panels of the IPCC.

The UN has a hidden agenda to carbon tax everything and make sure the NWO Empire gets the money. How can educated humans be so utterly stupid or is it motivated ignorance or make sure to be on the gravy train and get that funding form our big fat climate change sacred cows no doubt. Of course people who don't believe in Global warming must be terrorists of intelligence.

Posted: 22 April 2009 12:40:03

How many people will be sorry in the future because, like children, they did not listen when told to keep their hands away from the fire? When the ice sheets all melt, and the coral reefs all die, and their are mass extinction of species, and forest fires that are completly out of control, and hurricanes get even stronger, and we have no place to bury those who pass on, then perhaps, through great suffering, humanity will learn that nature and humanity is ONE. You neglect one, you neglect yourself, you hurt one, you hurt yourself. Maybe one day humanity, in particular the western and industralized nations, will learn that simplicity and revereance for nature will bring peace of mind, not money and better looking cars, or better looking people, or high rise apartments, or nice jobs, or fancy restaurants, or fast jets; but pure simplicity of life; living this way is the highest science, harmony of human and nature.

Posted: 24 July 2009 14:16:55