All:
Tom Wigley & Ken C are both right. We need the geo group, but more important, this is the moment to speak truth to power. Our proper channel is John Holdren, and I share Tom's feelings, because I know him well. John & I were postdocs at Livermore in the late 1960s. We're old friends. He wasn't much as a theoretical physicist but showed policy skills. I recall Ed Teller asking if I thought he could handle laision with the fusion/environment community then developing and I said yes. John went to Berkeley as a policy guy & I went to UC Irvine to do physics, though I could have stayed at Livermore; I liked surfing better. John is a cautious mover, reliable because he won't push the boundaries. An apparatchik. Coming out of Stanford, working with the Ehrlichs, he knows energy policy, but not the sort of physics we do here in the geo group. He needs educating. I worked at the Washington level before John, as a Soviet and defense type in the Reagan era, though I'm a Democrat. I never liked the policy swamp; John lives there. Tom is right: John doesn't appreciate the enormity of our problem, the efficiencies of geoengineering, or the speed of the environment's accelerations. We have to reach him through the layers designed to slow down change. Doing this demands deft policy connections and scrupulous use of real world data. I think that's our next major challenge, if we are to serve as collective Paul Reveres for a revolu tion that will take a century to play out. Gregory Benford -----Original Message----- From: Tom Wigley <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; geoengineering <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 5:53 pm Subject: [geo] Re: REGARDING DETERIORATION OF GEOENGINEERING GOOGLEGROUP Dear all, Altho I have great respect for John Holdren, there are two issues where we have different opinions. First, he has failed to realize what an enormous technology challenge we face to keep CO2 at an acceptable level through mitigation. Second, he leans towards being against geoengineering. Alvia gave us the following quote ... > The ‘geo-engineering’ approaches considered so far appear to be afflicted with some combination of high costs, low leverage, and a high likelihood of serious side effects.” In my view, this is wrong in the combined mitigation/geoeng case that I espouse. Tom. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ William Fulkerson wrote: > Dear Ken: > I second John Latham's note except I would choose the second option. > Both options are rather bad, however. Geo has accomplished what I had > hoped it might. It has provided a global forum on geoengineering and > related themes. In my opinion this Google Group attention will lead > ultimately to the R&D funding needed to test various geoengineering > schemes. That's is what many of us need to see. You deserve the > credit, but don't stop now. You are close to victory. We need Geo until > someone in Government takes the lead and is serious about providing an > adequate R&D program and budget. > With best regards, > Bill > On Dec 19, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote: > >> Folks, >> >> The original goal of this googlegroup was to transmit information that >> would be useful to professionals and informed citizens concerned with >> issues relating to intentional intervention in the climate system. >> >> The quality of posts on this group has, in my opinion, deteriorated to >> the point that it is no longer able to fulfill this primary purpose >> adequately. >> >> I think there are two basic options: >> >> 1. I can moderate this group more ruthlessly and reject any message >> that does not actually transmit new relevant information or raise a >> question that has not already been discussed at length. ( In this >> case, I will make many enemies as I reject messages from >> well-intentioned people. ) I will not have time to give each submitter >> of a rejected posting my reasons for rejecting the posting. >> >> 2. I can abandon this group to people with much more time on their hands. >> >> So, for me, the question is down to tightening the reigns, or letting >> them go. >> >> Comments? >> >> Best, >> >> Ken >> >> >> >> ___________________________________________________ >> Ken Caldeira >> >> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology >> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >> >> [email protected] <mailto:kcalde [email protected]>; [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab >> +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 >> >> >> >> > > Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow > Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment > University of Tennessee > 311 Conference Center Bldg. > Knoxville, TN 37996-4138 > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > 865-974-9221, -1838 FAX > Home > 865-988-8084; 865-680-0937 CELL > 2781 Wheat Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771 > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
