Arrogant relative to what? The people not yet borned?

how arrogant is this statement:
‘Clearly, being the people currently alive we have the responsibility of acting and deciding which climate is ideal’

Hello?

Having read both the pro and the (largely oil sponsored) con science, to the extent that a lay-man can, I think the evidence is pretty incontriversal that there is global warming, and that it will be wrose than what has currently been predicted. The scientific consensus is staggering, and those who do not accept it need to learn more about how science works (as opposed to partisan politics).

It is true that people have been wrong about disasters in the past. They have also been right about disasters, and the global warming “theory” has an enormous amount of empirical evidence.

For those of you who somehow believe that there is no global warming because some scientist somewhere once thought we might be entering an ice age, I can provide an equally logical (but more complelling) counter-example.
1. The Bust administration refuses to accept global warming as a real threat worthy of action.
2. Virtually every claim the Bush administration has made has been false (WMDs, Iraq will be a cake-walk, there is no need for warrants to wire-tap the American public, etc.).
3. Therefore, we can conclude that there is global warming and it is a serious threat, as Bush acts like it isn’t.

Either way, it is ridiculous to expect everyone to accept the truth before proceeding to do something about it. For example, Einstein refused to accept quantum mechanics, that didn’t mean we had to wait to convince him… The global warming science is established, the so-called “debate” is largely a creation of the oil industry and other special interests who realize action will hurt their profits and who are therefore seeking to delay it with junk-science, political donations and empty argumentation. It’s the same tactic the tobacco industry used successfully for thrity years, but we can’t afford to spare thirty years on this issue.

As for Griffin’s comments, they were both irresponsible – he can have personal opinions all he wants, but he was speaking as the head of NASA – and ridiculous. Of course, man has the power to alter the environment, that’s the whole problem: man-made global warming. And of course we need to stop it. All of our infrastructure, and the Earth’s bio-systems, are adapted for the current climate. The cost of trying to re-adapt, of moving our cities, of hoping the tundra and deserts can grow food for us (they can’t, the soil is wrong) is in-calculable, and far out-weighs the cost of changing our CO2 output. Millions will die if we do nothing. Moreover, huge numbers of species will not be able to adapt in time and will be lost. This will also inflict further damage on us as food supplies dwindle. Even species that could in theory adapt, will often be prevented from doing so by man-made interference – ie forests can gradually move North in theory to compensate for higher temperatures, but roads, cities, suburban sprawl, etc. will prevent many from expanding in that direction.

Clearly, being the people currently alive we have the responsibility of acting and deciding which climate is ideal, and clearly the ideal climate is the one that we and the rest of the Earth are currently adapted to. Arguments to the contrary are so clearly thoughtless and illogical that they can only be explained as ruses by those seeking to delay action on global warming.