It is virtually impossible to have an intelligent and meanigful discussion about global warming. The "debate" seems to have degenerated into a pissing match. The following comment seems reasonable enough:
"I have no doubt that global -- that a trend of global warming exists," NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said in a taped interview that aired Thursday on National Public Radio. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that is a problem we must wrestle with."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," Griffin said.
Jerry Mahlman, a former top scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who is now at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said Griffin's remarks showed he was either "totally clueless" or "a deep anti-global warming ideologue."
Mr. Mahlman's comments may be taken out of context. If not, then I must ask why stoop to name calling rather than dispute what Mr. Griffin says? Why is it not arrogant to take such a position? Why is a warmer climate not the best for all human beings? How does anyone person alive today know what's best for the masses alive today and alive tomorrow? Why would we not expect human beings to adjust to warmer climates and actually become better off? Why expect them to be inanimate objects and to simply take what comes?
But instead we get insults. I half-expect the hysteria to include Kevin Bacon dressed in a military uniform screaming "ALL IS NOT WELLLLLLLLLLLLLL! "
Of course the name calling comes from the same camp where global warming skeptics were paired with holocaust deniers, so I should not expect much give and take in any "debate."