In my view this is unnecessary. There are normal channels for all this -- proposal review mechanisms, peer review of publications, Academy panels, curiosity driven science.
As time goes by, uncertainties in what will happen with and without geoengineering will be reduced through normal procedures. Then and only then can we think seriously about the issue. Tom. ++++++++++++++++++++ Andrew, add my name to the list not supporting your proposal. > > This entire subject has been addressed on this group before. You might > want > to search the archives. > > In essence, you conflate two purposes - a respected body that can advise > the > policy process; and a scientific body that can peer review its own work. > You add to these a presumption that geoengineering is "a good thing". > > Several groups already cover these two purposes, and they are not hampered > by the "a good thing" presumption. > > What is needed is a scientifically authoritative professional body that is > indeed interested in promoting geoengineering within the rational limits > of > its use. This is commonly known as a professional association, or in > Washington D.C. as a lobby group. That does not exist and while the > private > sector has many of these, the academic community generally does not. Even > scientific bodies, who indeed have lobbiests, generally stay away from > politics so as to remain viewed as neutral, independent and providing > nothing more than science. Those that have taken the more political route > are generally discounted. > > I believe this community needs Washington representation so that they can > share in the largess of the Federal research budget. For that they could > use a professional association of sorts. It would look nothing like what > you intend. > > David Schnare > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Andrew Lockley > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> There have been a number of members putting arguments against the >> proposed board: >> Alan Robock >> Ken Caldeira >> Dan Whaley >> >> I'd like to see agreement as far as is possible about the best way >> forward. May I therefore ask the people who have opposed the creation >> to explore how they see the subject being taken forward? >> >> My own reasons for supporting the Board is that it allows >> multidisciplinary scrutiny of projects and their context by a stable >> team of experts who can establish clear criteria and standards of >> review. Right now the Board doesn't have all the experts it needs, >> but that will change in due course if the idea wins further support. >> >> I'm completely at ease with the idea that I'm potentially on the wrong >> track, but at the moment I don't see a way for the geoengineering >> discipline to formalise and progress without some organisational >> centre. Whilst the googlegroup and wikipedia are very useful, they >> don't represent the right environment for a formal peer review process >> that policy makers are going to want to see if they're to move forward >> with projects that might seem pretty wild to a president, banker or >> general. >> >> Opinions please.... >> >> A >> PS Benford is at UC Irvine (apologies) >> >> > >> > > > -- > David W. Schnare > Center for Environmental Stewardship > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
