Áhrifamaður bætist í sístækkandi hóp efasemdarmanna

Það er gott að sjá enn einn vísindamanninn lýsa yfir efasemdum um skelfileg áhrif manngerðar hlýnunar.

Þrátt fyrir að æðstiprestur dómsdagsspámannanna James Hansen vinni líka hjá NASA hefur NASA einnig birt rannsóknaniðurstöður sem veikja trú manna á dómsdagsmódel Hansens o.fl. Sérstaklega á ég við gervihnattamælingar NASA á lítilli hlýnun í neðsta hluta lofthjúps jarðar sem passa illa inn í módel sem spá hlýnun.

Mér fannst það góður punktur hjá Griffin að leyfa sér að efast um að við gætum ákveðið að meðalhiti jarðar fyrir 50 árum væri ákjósanlegur og að við ættum að reyna að viðhalda honum með öllum tiltækum ráðum.

Einnig finnst mér að hann hafi betri skilning en ýmsir á því að vísindamenn eigi að rannsaka og birta niðurstöður. Starf þeirra sé hins vegar ekki að taka pólitískar ákvarðanir um hvernig eigi að bregðast við niðurstöðunum.

 

Yfirmaður NASA ekki viss um að bregðast þurfi við loftslagsbreytingum

Athugasemdir

[Finnur Hrafn Jónsson, 2.6.2007 kl. 03:06]

Ekki vísindamaður? Satt að segja man ég ekki eftir í svipinn að hafa séð mann með fleiri háskólagráður í raunvísindum, sjá: http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/griffin_bio.html

Til að byrja með er hann með BS í eðlisfræði, einnig MS í geimvísindum og MS í hagnýtri eðlisfræði. Einnig er hann með nokkrar MS og doktorsgráður í verkfræðigreinum o.fl.

Loftslagsvísindi byggja á mörgum vísindagreinum. Spálíkön hefðbundinna veðurfarsfræðinga hafa fengið einna harðasta gagnrýni frá stjarneðlisfræðingum sem telja sig sjá meiri fylgni hita jarðar við breytingar í útgeislun sólar en breytingar í CO2.

Ég held að Griffin geti alveg talist bær til að meta rannsóknaniðurstöður úr mismunandi vísindagreinum.

[Ágúst H Bjarnason, 2.6.2007 kl. 09:28]

Sæll Finnur

 

Margir vísindamenn bregðast vel við yfirlýsingu Micaels Griffin, sem er æðsti yfirmaður NASA. Þeir eru sammála um að Griffin hafi talað af mikilli skynsemi og yfirvegun um málið. Úrklippu úr viðtalinu má sjá ef smellt er á krækjuna neðst, og þar má einnig hlusta á allt viðtalið sem snýst um miklu meira en loftslagsmál, en af einhverjum ástæðum þá hlusta fjölmiðlamenn ekki á slíkt. Auðvitað ættu menn að skoða frumheimildina áður en menn dæma.

Sjá jákvæð ummæli nokkurra vísindamanna hér:

**************************************************************************E-WIRE PRESS RELEASE E-WIRE PRESS RELEASE E-WIRE PRESS RELEASE**************************************************************************For Immediate Release

Scientists Rally Around NASA Chief After Global Warming Comments

WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Jun. 1 -/E-Wire/--

"NASA's top administrator, Michael Griffin, speaking on NPR radio made some refreshingly sensible comments about the present global warming scare," said Robert Ferguson, Director of the Science and Public Policy Institute. "Many rationalist scientists agree with him, clearly demonstrating there is no scientific consensus on man-made, catastrophic global warming," said Ferguson.

Griffin said he doubted global warming is "a problem we must wrestle with," and that it is arrogant to believe that today's climate is the best we could have and that "we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change."

While NASA scientist, James Hansen, was sharply critical of his boss, other scientists from around the world came to Griffin's support.

Said Dr. Walter Starck, an Australian marine scientist, "Griffin makes an important distinction between the scientific findings of climate change and dramatic predictions of catastrophic consequences accompanied by policy demands. The former can be evaluated by its evidence, but; the latter rest only on assertions and claims to authority. Alternate predictions of benefits from projected changes have been proposed with comparable authority and plausibility. For example, unless one chooses to define the Little Ice Age as "normal" and "optimal" the net effect of any warming has only been beneficial and any anthropogenic contribution very small indeed. Dramatic predictions of imminent disaster have a near perfect record of failure. Griffin's note of caution in the escalating concern over climate change deserves sober consideration.

Another Australian, who testified before a Senate panel last year, Professor Robert Carter, observed, "My main reaction to Michael Griffin is to congratulate him on his clear-sightedness, not to mention his courage in speaking out on such a controversial topic."

Dr. Tim Ball, a Canadian climatologist, responded: "Griffin's statement is sensible because it allows time for the testing of the man-made global warming hypothesis to continue as it should."

"I certainly support Griffin's comments," said William Kininmonth, a former head of the Australian National Climate Centre. "Not only is it speculative to claim that humans can in any way influence the course of climate but it is arrogant to suggest that today's climate is getting worse than it has been in the past. For example, who would prefer to return to pre-industrial conditions as they were during the Little Ice Age? Frost Fairs were common on many rivers of Europe and the London diarist John Evelyn records that in 1683-84 the Thames River froze from late December to early February. Conditions were terrible with men and cattle perishing and the seas locked with ice such that no vessels could stir out or come in. The fowls, fish and exotic plants and greens were universally perishing. Food and fuel were exceptionally dear and coal smoke hung so thickly that one could scarcely see across the street and one could scarcely breathe."

Kansas geologist, Lee Gerhard added, "Griffin's statement focuses on the hubris that affects much of public policy. It is great to know that someone out there besides geologists understands that humans do not dominate earth's dynamic systems.

Said Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, "Claims of major, impending catastrophe are speculative and go far beyond what has been credibly established by researchers to date. Hence Griffin's view is not at all controversial or out of step with available evidence, and he should be commended for having the courage to say it. The fact that it took courage, however, points to the deeper problem that questioning the catastrophic propaganda we hear so much is now considered politically incorrect."

Dr. Pat Michaels at the University of Virginia agrees: "NASA Administrator Michael Griffin's statement about whether or not it is in fact a "problem" is supported by a scientific literature that his employee, James Hansen, appears to ignore. It is well-known that much of the Eurasian arctic was between 4 and 12 degrees (F) warmer than modern temperatures for much of the 6,000 years between 3,000 and 9,000 years ago, and that such warming was caused by a massive intrusion of warm Atlantic water into the arctic. Given that the only way it can get there is to flow east of Greenland, Mr. Hansen's well-publicized fears that a massive amount of Greenland's ice will fall into the ocean in the next 100 years is mere science fiction. It is ironic that today President Bush appears to have given in to Hansen's hysteria rather than to the calm reason of NASA Administrator Griffin.

Finally, Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl praised Griffin's climate comments, calling them "sensible." On his public blog, Motl said he applauds Michael Griffin and encourages him to act as "a self-confident boss of a highly prestigious institution." "I have always believed that the people who actually work with hard sciences and technology simply shouldn't buy a cheap and soft pseudoscientific propaganda such as the 'fight against climate change,'" Motl added.

---

Sjá einnig hér:

Hlustið á Griffin og lesið ummælin.

NASA Chief Questions Urgency of Global Warming

[Ágúst H Bjarnason, 2.6.2007 kl. 09:47]

Það er áhugavert að lesa hvað Dr. Lubos Motl, vísindamaður við Harvard hefur að segja um málið á bloggsíðu sinni, The Reference Frame:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/05/boss-of-nasa-sensible-on-global-warming.html

[Finnur Hrafn Jónsson, 2.6.2007 kl. 20:06]

Sæll Ágúst, takk fyrir gott innlegg.

Vonandi verður Griffin til þess að fleiri vísindamenn láti heyra í sér um þessi efni þó að það sé ekki áhættulaust fyrir þá.

Ljóst er að Motl hefur vissar áhyggjur af því að Griffin haldi ekki starfinu sem segir okkur ófagra sögu af þöggun sem viðgengst í þessum málum.

Magnús Jónsson veðurstofustjóri skrifaði grein í Morgunblaðið fyrir nærri 10 árum þar sem hann lýsti áhyggjum af skoðanakúgun vísindamanna sem rannsaka loftslagsbreytingar o.fl. Ekki er að sjá annað en áhyggjur hans hafi reynst eiga fyllilega rétt á sér.

Sjá greinasafn: http://www.mbl.is/mm/gagnasafn/grein.html?radnr=395261