No Oliver, I do think what's needed is an international Board of great scientists and engineers. Whilst this body develops, I see an interim Board composed of members of this group as a useful stepping stone. However, you should note that I've already asked people to think of non-googlegroup members who can contribute in order to 'raise the game'. I certainly never thought for a moment that it should be 'closed' to non-googlegroup people!
Some of the initial members drawn from this googlegroup would probably remain on this Board as it developed into a high-level panel, as this googlegroup currently includes World-class scientists. Others members, such as myself, would probably step down as the Board took on other members. A 2009/1/13 Oliver Wingenter <[email protected]>: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
