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 [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
