I agree completely -- a bad idea. Tom.
++++++++++++++++++++++ > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
