Ken, Personally, I see the board as a forum where proposed experiments can be given a public and transparent nit-picking by experts from a wide variety of fields. Further, it can also be where the 'needs assessment' for geoengineering can be thoroughly examined.
My suggestion is that the intention should be to peer-review proposed projects, envisaged scenarios and current warming data, not to sit as judge and jury on projects. The board's recommendations will hopefully be taken seriously by scientists and policy makers, but the intention in my view should be scrutiny, not executive. I hope you will see things differently in the light of this point of view, and that you and other esteemed scientists will give consideration to joining. I am sure you would agree that you would be better able to do this job than would I. A 2009/1/12 Ken Caldeira <[email protected]>: > Andrew, > > I think the development of a board like this at this time is > counter-productive and a bad idea. > > As scientists, we should be attempting to provide new information and not > passing judgment on what ought or ought not to be done. > > As citizens, we should be saying what we think ought to be done, but we have > no special authority to balance diverse competing interests that go far > beyond the domain of the environmental sciences. > > At this point, I think it far better to promote reasoned discussion of these > complex and emotive issues than to set ourselves up as if we are in a > position to collectively pass judgment. > > Best, > > Ken > > ___________________________________________________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > [email protected]; [email protected] > http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab > +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 > > > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> I fully endorse the comments below and I respectfully ask the notable >> Scientists among us to put their names forward for a role in the >> advisory board of an 'Institute of Geoengineering' which would fulfil >> this function and others. >> >> A >> >> 2009/1/11 Oliver Wingenter <[email protected]>: >> > >> > Dear Colleagues, >> > >> > I think the time is rapidly approaching that a Geoengineering Projects >> > Evaluation Panel (or something like it) be set up to evaluate and >> > recommend projects for deployment. >> > >> > We don't need the likes Dr. Dogooder, his trusted colleagues, backed >> > by the Mr.BigandRich Foundation or the Crowned Prince of Dubai going >> > out and Cowboying it. Plans for a large scale geoengineering need to >> > well thought out. There exists potential projects that can be done at >> > the 1 to 10s million dollar range. >> > >> > The Board should international in nature and be composed of scientists >> > from many disciplines. A seemingly innocent regional project may have >> > the potential to disrupt global dynamics if a key temperature or >> > buoyancy gradients are disrupted. Plans for a pilot research projects >> > should be quickly separated from larger scale activities so as not to >> > burden research as in theLOHAFEX case. The board should have at its >> > disposal sufficient expertise and resources to do independent modeling >> > studies to verify claims of the applicant and to bring out possible >> > unforeseen consequences. The panel's mission should not be just to >> > tear down projects but to aim to improve them. >> > >> > Sincerely, >> > >> > Oliver Wingenter >> > >> > > >> > >> >> >> > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
