tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post558402810610090684..comments2023-11-03T02:18:41.733-07:00Comments on WattHead - Energy News and Commentary: Dumb Quote of the Day: NASA Chief Says Global Warming Fine By HimJesse Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00297127385884430247noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-32844809422150768062007-10-31T16:53:00.000-07:002007-10-31T16:53:00.000-07:00And [forgive me], but just to further the point......And [forgive me], but just to further the point...<BR/><BR/>The Earth is constantly changing, right? It's never in a static state, neither as far as movement goes, or as far as climate.<BR/><BR/>Optimal living conditions on Earth have been going up and down since day dot. We don't have a static planet where we can say, this is the average temperature and this is how it's going to stay and this is how it's always been. And it's like this everywhere.<BR/><BR/>It's constantly changing, right?<BR/><BR/>So would it be very intelligent of us to take a snapshot in time and then say - here, these are the optimal conditions of earth. This is the atmosphere at it's best. Would that be an intelligent thing to do?<BR/><BR/>How would we know that? Are you in receipt of data that was collected before science was invented? Because every bit of historical scientific data we have, is based on scientific hypothesis (unless you happen to know Dr Caveman from the year 2 million BC who has been passing mean averages to you).<BR/><BR/>You cant take a one time snap shot of something that is constantly evolving and changing, and then say....there...that was our target at its best. It's just not possible. And this was another thing that Griffin was alluding to and did'nt come across clearly enough.<BR/><BR/>Although I've got to be brutally honest, I did think you did him a major dis-service in your write up and took his comments way out of context.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-88897261783567236302007-10-31T16:20:00.000-07:002007-10-31T16:20:00.000-07:00Actually, from a purely scientific point of view, ...Actually, from a purely scientific point of view, what Dr Griffin said was perfectly correct and I think you may be taking his comments out of context.<BR/><BR/>Let me explain what I think he meant.<BR/><BR/>From a scientific pov, when talking about a condition that affects a whole planet, how do you then fairly decide who gets to dictate what the perfect state of the globe is, was and should be? The globe is massive - how would you go about making sure that every inch of it was fairly represented?<BR/><BR/>Example...while you sat in your nice air conditioned home or office, typing out your rebuttle to Dr Griffin, in the same amount of time, some guy on the other side of the world with a long beard, few clothes, living in a tent, sweated half his body salt out in a desert somewhere.<BR/><BR/>Meaning this....let's say that the conditions we have at the moment are the optimal for Earth...lets just say that some bunch of scientists in the West have been given the privaledge of deciding that.....do you think that man living in the tent would agree with that decision? Do you think he thinks that his conditions are optimal?<BR/><BR/>I think what Dr Griffin was alluding to (which did'nt come across very clearly), is that it wouldnt be right for a small, select group of people (no matter how "important" or qualified they are) to have the right to dictate for the whole planet what the optimum conditions are, were or should be - and I agree with that, wholeheartedly.<BR/><BR/>And thats at the core of this whole issue...because in order to know how to "fix" something, you have to know what that something was like at its optimum condition, so that you'll know when your efforts to fix it have been successful.<BR/><BR/>Now do you understand?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com