Dear Andrew, I think our plans are for different types of panels or boards. Correct me if I am wrong but yours would be comprised exclusively of Google geo members for the purpose of ranking project with yourself included so as to aid casual wiki users. Some projects are still in their infancy.
My notion is for an international panel comprised of scientist from many disciplines that can approve or endorse geoengineering projects nearly ready for deployment. Oversight is needed to avert possible eco disasters. We may first want have an international committee whose sole purpose is to seat a permanent committee. I am not proposing to take the lead. Some of Ken's stature is required. Sincerely, Oliver Wingenter On Jan 12, 4:32 pm, "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> wrote: > (I endorse John's comments.) > > We won't all agree, but we do need to move forward together with broad > consensus. At the moment we seem to have about a 50% split between > supporters and opposers. > > The way I see it we now have 4 choices for progressing the Board, and > the discipline as a whole. > > 1) We do nothing, relying on the 'current process' (whatever that is) > to deliver any necessary geoeng in time. I personally don't believe > there's currently enough scrutiny and oversight to encourage > politicians to take prompt action. > 2) The volunteers set up the Board in defiance of those people who > oppose such a move. This strikes me as divisive. > 3) The opposers could come up with a list of changes or rules they'd > need to see before they can support the board. This seems sensible, > if people are willing to do this. > 4) Someone can come up with a better idea, which we all do instead. I > am sure there are some good ideas out there. > > Whilst I accept that not everyone will agree with whatever we decide > to do, I would like to think that people can at least be positive and > help the group make a decision that is supported by most people. I'd > also like to see people being respectful of everyone's opinion and of > the offer the volunteers have so kindly made. > > A > > 2009/1/12 John Nissen <[email protected]>: > > > > > Hi all, > > > I see a lot of negative comment to Andrew's suggestion. > > > But supposing somebody finds strong evidence that the Arctic sea ice is very > > likely to disappear (at end summer) in two or three years, where does he > > go? Don't we need a body of people who can say - well - there are these > > particular geoengineering techniques that have a good chance of helping to > > save the Arctic sea ice? As Ken said, there is no alternative to > > geoengineering for saving the sea ice. > > > If Gregory is correct, and there is little chance of Obama supporting albedo > > engineering, we need a body capable of spelling out the requirement to him. > > Is a lobby group of scientists such a bad idea? Didn't scientists get > > together to persuade the President et al to carry out the Manhattan > > project? We have just as much at stake here - perhaps a lot more. > > > Note that it is the duty of governments to protect our own futures - > > everyone's future. But they need to understand the situation and what they > > have to do. What we are asking for albedo engineering is not much - a drop > > in the ocean financially. > > > We also need a body capable of withstanding the attacks of people who are > > against geoengineering in principle - people who may prove to be just as > > dangerous as the deniers of anthropogenic global warming. > > > Cheers, > > > John > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Dan Whaley > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; > > geoengineering > > Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 6:05 PM > > Subject: [geo] Re: Geoengineering Projects Approval Committee > > For what its worth so do I. Completely. I think the intentions you have > > need to be accomplished in other ways. > > > Dan > > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Alan Robock <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> I agree, too. > > >> Alan > > >> Alan Robock, Professor II > >> Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program > >> Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction > >> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 > >> Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 > >> 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected] > >> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock > > >> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, [email protected] wrote: > > >> > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
