NASA Administrator Hits a Bullseye While Underlings Howl

I consider myself pretty well read on the Global Warming / Climate Change debate yet I do not recall anyone ever addressing the facet of the debate that NASA Administrator Michael Griffen has pointed out. ABC News reports Griffen's comments:

"I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists," Griffin told Inskeep. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."

"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said. "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."

When I read this statement, I could only sit there with open-mouthed fascination at the sheer beauty of it. The bottom line is that Climate Change proponents have indeed arrogantly judged the current earth climate as the optimal climate. Any climate change that has and will occur is ordained a "problem" without any analysis or consideration to the contrary. In their rush to picture worst case scenarios of catastrophe, has any scientific group actually done any research on the final climate state and considered if overall, this final state might actually be better for many areas? As Michael Griffen deduces, only after knowing the final climate state and comparing it to the current climate state can we begin to analyze if there is a "problem".

He drives the point even further by noting that we must also consider who both is capable and has the right to decide what the optimal climate is. Are we going to leave such decisions to government bureaucrats or even one group of scientists instead of another? So there is a lot of analysis and many decisions to be made before we are in a position to determine if we have a problem.

The incredibly weakly reasoned response by NASA's resident climate alarmist was also reported by ABC News:

Griffin's comments immediately drew stunned reaction from James Hansen, NASA's top climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

"It's an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement," Hansen told ABC News. "It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change."

Hansen believes Griffin's comments fly in the face of well-established scientific knowledge that hundreds of NASA scientists have contributed to.

"It's unbelievable," said Hansen. "I thought he had been misquoted. It's so unbelievable."

Hansen's response have all the power of "well you're stupid". Hansen completely avoids actually responding to Griffen's main point and sticks on message to the "we are beyond debate" meme. The sheer impotence of Hansen's comments must be an embarrassment to his supporters. I hope Griffen's point continues to be driven home in the debate. It is fresh and reasoned approaches like this to the public discourse that may yet save us from the madness the alarmists are driving us toward.

As always with posts on climate change, here are my five questions we need to answer before succumbing to Climate Change Alarmism:
1) Has it been proven that Global Warming is actually happening?
2) Has it been proven that Global Warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gases?
3) Has it been proven that Global Warming will cause catastrophic conditions that will result in massive human casualties?
4) Has it been proven that if 1-3 are correct that it is possible for man to prevent #3 by reducing or eliminating their output in greenhouse gases?
5) Just because 2-4 are unproven and likely a crock, does this excuse man's irresponsible polluting of the earth?