"PGDW#9: Defending NASA’s Griffin"
They specifically endorse these Luddite remarks:
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.
This is a fair point with which only the Panglossian can disagree. There are undoubtedly benefits from global warming to agriculture and in terms of lives saved — the experts agree that more lives are saved than additionally lost in a warmer world.
Now that is disinfotainment. Yes, Darfur is apparently a benefit, to PG. So is a once-in-a-1000-year drought causing Australia’s ‘food bowl’ to run dry. Not to mention what the future holds if we don’t change course immediately: catastrophic sea level rise, superhurricanes, “a different planet” as Griffin’s employee, James Hansen and four dozen other experts just warned about. But for PG’s Iain Murray:
In short, I fail to see what the problem is. Is the stance conservative? Certainly. Is it injudicious? Certainly not.
And I always thought conservatives wanted to conserve what we have — Silly me. If Griffin is a judicious conservative, I’d hate to meet an injudicious one.