apothanein kerdos Posted May 31, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted May 31, 2007 Article President Bush called on 15 nations Thursday to set greenhouse gas emission standards, hours after the head of his space program questioned whether global warming is really a problem. "I have no doubt that global Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 "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," he continued. "And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted May 31, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.10 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted May 31, 2007 I think his opinion is as valid as the egg head scientists and the environmental wackos. I don't believe global warming is a problem. In some parts of the nation, they probably could use a little warming, as I have been in snow as recent as my last west coast trip. If global warming is such a dire thing, then I want to know why scientists haven't taken more serious the idea of scattering ash into the atmosphere? Most agree it would block out enough of the sun's rays to cool the planet. I don't support that idea because I don't believe there is a problem, and would be concerned that it would result in a man-made problem of reducing the temperature too much. I just think we are going through natural weather cycles. All of this stuff about CO2 emmisions being the cause of the so-called problem is nothing but speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrestkc Posted June 1, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 114 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,015 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/15/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted June 1, 2007 He is a rocket scientist, not a climatologist. Thus, this is simply his opinion. He is no more qualified in climatology as a heart doctor would be in rocket science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubal-Cain Posted June 2, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 448 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1981 Share Posted June 2, 2007 LOL. I guess it is now "arrogant" to try an implement a policy which saves lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lorax Posted June 2, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 183 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 1,892 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/07/1985 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Griffin was nominated by President Bush in 2005 and appointed by a Republican congress to his position in NASA. Considering he is a Republican politician, it is a little optimistic to assume his position of global warming is completely non-political. If you wanted a more credible opinion on global warming you might want to ask everyone else at NASA, as well. Just about everyone else is singing a different tune, and they aren't all political pawns to boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted June 2, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 2, 2007 Here's what I've seen: character assignation. Yet, no one has tried to deal with his arguments and if they are implausible or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lorax Posted June 2, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 183 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 1,892 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/07/1985 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Here's what I've seen: character assignation. Yet, no one has tried to deal with his arguments and if they are implausible or not. Just look at what the majority of scientists are saying. Global warming is a big issue and Mr. Griffin is not among the immediately relevant experts on climate. I'm not a climatologist and I won't dismantle his arguments (not tonight, anyway), but climatologists have made their position of global warming clear, and Griffin is miles off the map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted June 2, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 2, 2007 Here's what I've seen: character assignation. Yet, no one has tried to deal with his arguments and if they are implausible or not. Just look at what the majority of scientists are saying. Global warming is a big issue and Mr. Griffin is not among the immediately relevant experts on climate. I'm not a climatologist and I won't dismantle his arguments (not tonight, anyway), but climatologists have made their position of global warming clear, and Griffin is miles off the map. So because a majority of climatologists say it's true, it must be true? What about dissenters? Do you honestly think he came to this conclusion autonomously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lorax Posted June 2, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 183 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 1,892 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/07/1985 Share Posted June 2, 2007 So because a majority of climatologists say it's true, it must be true? Of course not. But doesn't it weigh in at all? I guess I'm just wondering why you felt the need to contribute this site's skewed coverage of the global warming issue. I'm not saying we should immediately dismiss the minority opinion, but why accord it ALL the press? Can't we at least pretend for a moment that this site is scientifically honest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts