Hat tip to Kevin Vranes of Prometheus for bringing this to my attention, although I strenuously disagree with his leftist-statist reaction to it. (I must say I find it rather ironic that a climate blog in which members advocate statist policies calls itself Prometheus.)

NPR apparently just sent out a press release previewing a Steve Inskeep interview airing on tomorrow’s Morning Edition with NASA Administrator Michael Griffin. It is entitled:

NASA ADMINISTRATOR MICHAEL GRIFFIN NOT SURE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A PROBLEM

From the press release:

May 30, 2007; Washington, DC — NASA Administrator Michael Griffin tells NPR News that while he has no doubt “a trend of global warming exists, I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.”

In an interview with Steve Inskeep airing tomorrow on NPR News’ Morning Edition, Administrator Griffin says “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.”

From the full transcript:

STEVE INSKEEP: One thing that’s been mentioned that NASA is perhaps not spending as much money as it could on is studying climate change, global warming, from space. Are you concerned about global warming?

MICHAEL GRIFFIN: I am aware that 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. Whether that is a long term concern or not, I can’t say.

MR. INSKEEP : And I just wanted to make sure that I’m clear. Do you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?

MR. GRIFFIN: I have no doubt that global — that a trend of global warming exists. 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. 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, 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.

MR. INSKEEP : Is that thinking that informs you as you put together the budget? That something is happening, that it’s worth studying, but you’re not sure that you want to be battling it as an army might battle an enemy.

MR. GRIFFIN: Nowhere in NASA’s authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another. We study global climate change, that is in our authorization, we think we do it rather well. I’m proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to quote “battle climate change.”

Seems a surprisingly principled and individualistic position for a NASA bureaucrat to take. I am suitably impressed and appreciative. This is not to say that we shouldn’t do anything at all about anthropogenic global warming, if it is true, but rather that if we do anything it should be done on a voluntary and cooperative basis grounded in private property rights, not centrally planned and coerced according to the preferences of a relative few scientists and politicians. This means that both environmental regulations and state privileges for corporations should be eliminated and private property protected (including from clearly identified external polluters doing clearly identified harm to said property) so as to avoid the tragedy of the commons we see around us today.

[Update #1 (5/31 3:45pm): Here and here is Roy Cordato pointing out the bankruptcy of the typical leftist environmentalist response to skeptics as he comments on Hansen’s hissy fit over Griffin’s remarks. Sound familiar?] [Update #2 (6/01 11am): Why are Griffin’s remarks wise and not arrogant? See David Gordon’s brief discussion on future generations and the precautionary principle here.] [Update #3 (5:20pm): This article in today’s issue of the New York Times contains another smear without counterargument in addition to Hansen’s.

[Update #4 (6/02 1:30am): “Scientists Rally Around NASA Chief After Global Warming Comments,” E-Wire (June 1, 2007).] [Update #5 (6pm): Is the NASA Chief merely some uneducated political appointee? Hardly. Check out his bio. He has five master’s degrees and a doctorate as well as a good deal of experience, including at NASA, in academia, and elsewhere.] [Update #6 (6/04 9:45pm): Griffin vs. Hansen – who is more right? See here.] [Update #7 (6/12 7:30pm): Griffin has apparently apologized for his controversial statements. Should he have been pressured to do so? I don’t think so, and frankly the leftist tendency to demand apologies and recantations of statements they disagree with is abominable and disturbing – shades of communist re-education camps. Note, however, that Griffin didn’t recant. He just apologized for stirring up controversy.]

Apparently, the criticism that has discredited Mann’s “hockey stick” graph – a favorite reference of CAGW activists – is a concerted campaign by the fossil fuel industry and interests, not genuine scientific criticism of its serious scientific and statistical flaws. Who’s the conspiracy theorist now?

And apparently they also do IP address searches at RealClimate to sniff out undercover agents of the fossil fuel industry from among critical commenters on their blog.

Also, ad hominem attacks are prohibited by their comments policy; a standard, it appears, that doesn’t apply to the contributors and is selectively enforced on visitors.

Ironically, the very same post that the above paraphrased “hockey stick” comment follows amounts to a protestation of innocence against a charge that RealClimate is associated with one or more environmental organizations. The author of the post insists it is not so:

We wish to stress that although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research.

Let’s say I take him at his word that the contributors have not been paid for any reason and haven’t even had a lunch bought for them. Fenton Communications is a left-liberal public relations firm that has been orchestrating Cindy Sheehan’s anti-war campaign (not that I’m pro-war, I’m just saying…). Environmental Media Services is a left-liberal environmental orgnanization. Did Fenton handle RealClimate’s press release free of charge or did the contributors of RealClimate pool their funds from their government paychecks to pay for the service? Does RealClimate pay EMS for hosting their blog? The author of the post doesn’t say, but I would be surprised if the contributors of RealClimate paid for any of these services. If they didn’t pay for these services out of their own pockets, then RealClimate has received and continues to receive the equivalent, in terms of subsidized services, of financial support from left-liberal and environmental organizations. And if they did pay for these services, why deal exclusively with left-liberal and environmental organizations?

Now, I of course would be the first to say that these connections with left-liberal and environmental organizations are not by themselves enough to refute their substantive claims on climate change. Ad hominems make for faulty arguments. However, the hypocrisy and half-truths I have highlighted here do speak to overall character and intellectual honesty in particular. They profess to be pure, objective scientists while accusing their critics of being, almost universally, ignorant laymen, partisan hacks or enemies of science; but their biases are quite plain. I am here merely pointing out the hypocrisy. Their substantive claims must still be dealt with elsewhere, albeit with blinders off.

For more on and from Mann, see here.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

“Look, I don’t know, maybe I haven’t made myself completely clear, so for the record, here it is again,” said the Lord, His divine face betraying visible emotion during a press conference near the site of the fallen Twin Towers. “Somehow, people keep coming up with the idea that I want them to kill their neighbor. Well, I don’t. And to be honest, I’m really getting sick and tired of it. Get it straight. Not only do I not want anybody to kill anyone, but I specifically commanded you not to, in really simple terms that anybody ought to be able to understand.”

Read the rest here.

Anyone who has seen Al Gore’s propaganda film will likely recall this rhetorical question by self-proclaimed “former next president.” He, of course, proceeds to claim that they do. And, indeed, they do to a certain extent. As the graph below (from Gore’s movie) shows, they are indeed correlated fairly well.

(Click to enlarge.)

But correlation is not causation. In fact, CO2 rise seems to lag temperature increases by several hundred years in the paleoclimate data. This would suggest that the causation is the other way around: temperature causes CO2 rise. Now, CO2-defenders will respond that “yes, but CO2 has an amplifying effect, meaning that it produces further warming.” This seems plausible, but doesn’t seem like a complete explanation to me.

The question I have today, however, is one that struck me a while back while watching Gore’s movie. After he asked “Do they go together?” and extended the lines on the graph, when the lines stopped at the far right side of the graph I thought: “Well, they don’t seem to fit together very well at the end there.” Notice the steep spike in CO2 concentration. Now look at the temperature rise. See any difference in magnitude? Seems to me that, judging just from Gore’s graph, the temperature rise is within the normal range for a cyclical upturn despite the huge spike in CO2 concentration. My question is: why is that?

I’ve known about this knife for a while, ever since I saw a movie called The Hunted (with Tommy Lee Jones and Benicio Del Toro), and I have wanted one ever since. Below is the best picture I have ever seen of Tom Brown’s Tracker Knife. Isn’t it awesome?



Features:

* 1/4 inch 1095 high carbon steel
* 12 inches overall length
* 3 1/2 inch chopping blade
* 2 1/2 inch straight blade
* Rustproof black traction coating
* Scraping edge
* Draw knife configuration
* Saw tooth back
* Notching function
* Wire breaker
* Quarter rounder
* Drilling and engraving capabilities
* Spear compatable
* Perfectly balanced for throwing
* Original plastic sheath is included
* Comes with a certificate of authenticity.
* Laser engraved serial number
* 22 page instruction booklet included

There’s also a smaller version for better concealability.

Here’s what’s currently at the top of my wishlist: the Kel-Tec SU-16C. It has an integrated bipod and can actually be fired with the stock folded. Cool, huh? Of course, I’ll have to get a nice scope for it, some bigger mags, and maybe a muzzle flash suppressor.

This thing fires the same rounds as an M-16: 5.56mm. I used an M-16 in the Guard, but this is designed much better so that it won’t get so dirty from firing and misfire so easily. And, it can use standard M-16 ten, twenty, and thirty round mags. Sweet.

Retail price is $770 on the Kel-Tex website, $740 according to ImpactGuns.com but ImpactGuns is offering it for $526.99.

Is there nothing leftist global warming activists won’t do in an effort to censor and silence critics? Desmogblog.com has posted a letter by Laurie David to the University of Virginia, urging it to fire Patrick Michaels for accepting money from coal interests and coal-burning electric utility companies to help support his research, advocacy and consulting group New Hope Environmental Services.

Are we to suppose that leftist professors never sell their services or accept money to help support what they are already doing or want to do anyway? Or am I expecting too much consistency from mindguards here?

Apparently, Desmogblog is jumping on the bandwagen and will be writing its own letter. And then they have the gall to post about Gore’s new book, which whines hypocritically about skeptics allegedly trying to quell debate on global warming. What’s that now? The pot calling the alleged kettle black?

It must never occur to these watermelon environmentalists that critics of global warming alarmism might be supported (in whole or in part) by corporations because their expertise and pre-existing ideas are attractive to the companies. The mere existence of such funding is not evidence that the scientist is dishonestly adapting his views to those of his client. For more on funding issues and alarmist ad hominems, see my previous post on the subject.

And be sure to read the comments on that Desmogblog post to see more silly and unsupported personal attacks on Michaels’s integrity.

It’s interesting how desperate and vitriolic they seem to be to discredit Michaels. Perhaps it is because he is a climate scientist who has published in the top journals (Science, Nature, and others) and, because he explicitly accepts AGW, they cannot credibly label him a “Denialist.” He has credibility and is not so easy to dismiss. Therefore, they must attack with all the more venom and guile in order to get him out of the picture. See his Cato Institute bio, his UVA bio, and his group blog World Climate Report.

Whether you agree with Michaels or not, these tyrannical tactics of the CAGW mindguards are unconscionable.

P.S. For any CAGW mindguards who read this, CAGW stands for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming; it is the C to which I object primarily and the underhanded tactics employed to enforce the orthodoxy, I’m on the fence about the A.