Hi David‹Well, I do hope you read the comments under the article you referred us to, and then about the issue from the perspectives of some other reporters who did a bit of investigation. For example, see the following: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/ and make sure to read to the end where there is a response by the NSIDC scientist and some discussion. It does appear that Archer (whose article was on Daily Tech and so is his interpretation and not a report by a scientist at UIUC) jumped to a conclusion far too soon, not being skeptical like all of us should be, but instead picking out something that agreed with what he wanted to see.
Mike On 1/5/09 11:22 AM, "David Schnare" <dwschn...@gmail.com> wrote: > For those of you wondering what I really mean about the need for institutional > support for geoengineering, let me give you an example of how institutions > trump single voices, using the sea ice topic we've been discussing. > > While John is doing a yeoman's job carrying the water (or perhaps we should > say the ice) on concerns about loss of arctic ice, he is one voice speaking > through little more than letters. Consider the impact of the University of > Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, speaking through Daily Tech and > broadly communicated through the Drudge Report, as well as the AGU. Their > message: Sea ice recovery in 2008 has returned to 1979 levels, and the > thinness of the ice was important in the recovery. (Daily Tech report here: > http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834). > > There are, of course, reasons to disagree with the report, keying on ice > volume rather than area coverage, but that is not the point. Money doesn't > come from scientists, it comes from people who don't understand the difference > between area and volume and don't care -- because they care about how the > public views the issue. > > Based on the U of Ill's report, the alarm level is lower, not higher. This is > the power of institutional megaphones. > > For what it is worth, geoengineering is now getting help from The > Independent's megaphone. At least the debate is now in the public domain in a > useful way. Still not enough to get big money, but a step in the right > direction. > > David > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
