Suck it up

Firstly have a read of the following interview with NASA administrator Michael Griffin, the original source will be here. My comment is at the end.

"It has been mentioned that NASA is not spending as much money as it could to study climate change — global warming — from space. Are you concerned about 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 longterm concern or not, I can't say.

Do you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?

I have no doubt 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.

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?

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."

********************************************

When you are asked with dump questions, sometimes you have to suck it up, and with the patience to answer. The interview above is the example. Michael Griffin's opinion,which I totally agree with, is expressed in a highly logical way. That's why he is the NASA administrator, and the leftist reporter is whom with dump questions all the time.

Not the news at all, media always proposing fears to attract the bloody public attention. Global warming issue is one of the fears. I am not asking people to be cynical, don't misunderstand my stance. When something sounds serious and fearful approaching to me, I rather to do some more researches myself, or at least to let me obtain certain information to minimise my ignorance on the "fear", then to draw the line. I guess this is pretty common sense, isn't it?

How to draw a line to decide what actions I am gonna take, it entirely depends on the subject whether effects on my self-interest, as well as on my dear belief in the individualism and free choice. Let's look at the example:global warming itself has no negative impact on me. But when the government spend more money on the research arguing the dump subject(how to stop global warming etc) rather to spend some more money to improve education etc...it does matter.Just imagine that certain percentage of your hard working earning money has been thrown away to a dump hole, how could you be happy about that?

Seeing many people would like to believe Al Gore, real decent people like Michael Griffin, they would offer a smile and kindly tell no more than a truth. Will other people take it or not, can't be bothered.