Eugene Gordon writes: There is a possible alternative explanation. They don't really believe the sea ice disaster or consequences but they want to use it to further their own objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Geoengineering only muddies up the waters.
Good point. Here's a cautionary tale of three men in a boat. A scientist, an environmentalist and an engineer are sailing along in an old boat. The scientist notices that the boat is leaking badly. He asks for help to bail the water out with a bucket. The environmentalist agrees to help and finds he enjoys the bailing activity. But the engineer makes an excuse - he is designing a pump and he'll see if he can build it. The others despise him. Suddenly, out of the blue, the boat hits a rock. Water starts gushing in. The scientist measures the water flow, and says the hole is getting larger - he must do some more research into it. The engineer worries that the boat is sinking fast, and suggests plugging the hole, but he is scorned. The environmentalist wants to continue bailing. He argues that it is water in the boat that causes the sinking, so bailing is the solution. They all bail like mad. The boat sinks, and they all drown. End of story. Cheers, John ----- Original Message ----- From: John Nissen To: COLIN FORREST ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Davies, John ; David Wasdell Cc: geoengineering ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 12:33 PM Subject: Fw: To George Monbiot, re geoengineering and climate safety Environment campaigners need to change their tune. Cheers from Chiswick, John Nissen +44 208 742 31seventy ----- Original Message ----- From: John Nissen To: George Monbiot Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 12:01 AM Subject: To George Monbiot, re geoengineering and climate safety Dear George, It was good to meet you after the launch of "Climate Safety" yesterday [Thursday], but your outburst on geoengineering could be extraordinarily damaging, since albedo geoengineering (using cloud cooling) may now be the only way we can save the Arctic sea ice. To continue saying that "we must work even harder towards a low carbon economy" is utterly futile - because it can never save the Arctic sea ice. But worse is to deny the only means we have of saving the Arctic sea ice. Whatever the side effects of albedo geoengineering (and the danger from side effects is grossly exaggerated), the danger from disappearance of the Arctic sea ice must be worse. I know that most scientists share your view on geoengineering. Few scientists will admit that it is necessary because of the speed of disappearance of the ice, but nobody can deny it. They don't want to believe that the situation is so desparate, because it is like a death nell. The mind closes to the possibility of a disaster of a magnitude to destroy all civilisation. But this mind closing must have happened to the Easter Islanders (why did they continue cutting down trees), and many failed societies before us. Have you read Jared Diamond's book "Collapse - how societies choose to fail or survive"? If you read chapter 16, you will find that our civilisation exhibits most of the traits for failure. To deny that the situation is so bad is understandable. But to say how bad things are, and then deny the only means of saving ourselves from disaster is like suicidal genocide. Please, please come over to the other side, and support geoengineering. We have so little time to save the Arctic sea ice. Kind regards, John Nissen --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
