A dictionary (Webster's) definition of "catastrophe" is: "a sudden and terible
event, e.g. an earthquake, flood or tornado, any disster affecting one or more
persons".
By this definition a giant meteorite hitting earth is a "catastrophe", but the
relatively slow workings of climate change, while likely to be very serious, is
not well-described as a "catastrophe".
For this reason, the cautionary position taken by Alan, and by Tom Wigley, and
that are implicit in Ken's many clarificatory statements and in the Bala
article he recently circulated, are well taken.
Level-headedness, to say nothing of science and political judgment, might
benefit by (a lot) less use of the "c" word.
Chris Green
________________________________
From: [email protected] on behalf of David Schnare
Sent: Sun 1/18/2009 12:18 AM
To: Alan Robock
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; John Nissen; Geoengineering FIPC
Subject: [geo] Re: Boston Globe-- SETI perspective of Earth - I'd like to hear
more views on this
Alan:
You do not deny that there is insufficient political will to reduce carbon
emissions to levels necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change.
You do not deny the catastrophic nature of impending climate change.
So, what do you want, to see food riots due to economic dislocation or food
riots due to climate change?
Finally, you conflate getting research dollars with some half-baked plan for
immediate full scale implementation of various forms of geoengineering. I know
of no one that is calling for the latter, so why are you presuming that's what
this discussion is about.
The world cannot sit behind a desk, like you, and play with models, thinking
that is sufficient to understand the actual effects of the various approaches
being seriously considered. The world needs to run the OIF study in the scale
now being stopped by the environmental left - by people like you. The world
needs to test SRM, either with aerosols or cloud albedo adjustment, but you and
your ilk stand in the way.
If you want to advance the science, then get behind a $20 million research
effort and don't spend it all on modeling that does nothing more than make
guesses as to real world implication. Stand up and speak publicly about the
threat of a continued do nothing approach masked as modeling studies.
Or, accept the fact that you and yours will be as guilty for the food riots as
the deniers (nice scientific term, by the way).
In prosaic terms, either you are part of the solution or you are part of the
problem. Which is it Alan.
d.
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Alan Robock <[email protected]> wrote:
I can't stand it anymore.
How can all of you advocate geoengineering and try to build public
support for it before the science is done? How can you advocate something that
may be much worse than the problem it is trying to solve?
You are acting like politicians or lawyers trying to win an argument,
having already made up your minds with no regard to other information.
Why don't you behave like scientists and evaluate all the information?
Granted, we will never have everything, but why not wait a couple years until
much more research is done into the climate effects, engineering of delivery
mechanisms, psychlogical effects of changing sky color, ozone depletion, and
many other things?
Why can't we agree to advocate together for enhanced research funding
for geoengineering, and stop this premature advocacy for geoengineering itself?
This irresponsible behavior of advocacy for geoengineering now will
hurt responsible calls for research. You will tarnish the rest of us who are
trying to learn abouth the issue.
If you were a program manager, how much money would you give a global
warming denier for global warming research, knowing he has already made up his
mind? Think about it! If you want to start a geoengineering advocacy group,
go ahead but clearly separate yourself from responsible scientists.
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 Sat, 17 Jan 2009, David Schnare wrote:
Albert has asked me how to argue in a manner that will help
build wide
public support for geoengineering. Here are my suggestions,
drawn from my
paper of last March entitled The Uncomfortable Middle Ground
(see:
http://www.thomasjeffersoninst.org/pdf/articles/Schnare_speech_2.pdf
Step 1 - Identify all the high profile statements that the
Kyoto limits have
not worked, that governments refused to pass laws strict enough
to prevent a
climate catastrophe, and that people world wide refused to give
up economic
and personal growth in the name of climate change.
Step 2 - Explain the belief that the failures of step one will
destroy
mankind as we know it due to the otherwise inevitable climate
change.
Step 3 - Explain that Step 1 and Step 2 result in the
destruction of
civilization as we know it, either by economic catastrophe or by
environmental catastrophe.
Step 4 - Offer a third way - geoengineering (See the Wigley
papers on how to
use it in companion with carbon emission reduction) - an option
that avoids
destruction of civilization as we know it; and admit that it
may harm 5% of
the world (and less than 1% of civilization), but that is a
much smaller
risk than harming 100%, than seeing food riots, than seeing
mass starvation,
than seeing inundation of the homes and businesses of over half
the world
economy, of death of families, neighborhoods, and nations.
Publicly challenge the environmental activists to pick a side -
death by
economic harm, death by political inaction, death by climate
change, or life
through geoengineering.
End of argument.
Now comes the hard part - getting that message out. I have
thoughts about
that too, but until I see some environmental activists,
including several on
this group, speak up and admit their approach (world socialism,
population
reduction, and economic misery) is not going to be politically
acceptable,
and thus geoengineering research NOW is essential, then I'm
just going to
watch this area of research remain in its muddle, since any
further effort
would be a waste of time. Leadership must come from the
extreme left at
this point.
David Schnare
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Albert Kallio
<[email protected]>wrote:
I just wonder if you could suggest we overcome these
innate evolutionary
tendencies.
I think our best chance as a survival of human species
is to intensively
train ourselves and society to sustainability.
Otherwise, there is a risk that mankind becomes like
overgrown mushroom,
still growing but rot inside and full of worms. In a
way this is how the
Popcorn Theory of Evolution sees the apex of evolution.
Classical evolution
being the thesis where life develops into higher and
higher forms (physical
evolution >> biological evolution >> social evolution),
then comes the
antithesis, the crash and all advanced higher forms
began to fail due to
resource over-exploitation, the final phase being the
synthesis where all
the advanced life degenerates back into a stable form
of primitive single
cellular life, the consumed resources being locked
until the solar system
comes to its natural end.
In a way the pop-n'-puff ('popcorn') evolution is a
directionless movement
of life phenomenan through spacetime that creates and
degenerates life
indiscriminately without any indefinite, deterministic,
directional tendencies for the higher species
continuously becomed 'better
and better' as the classical Darwinian theory of
natural selection may
suggest.
As it is Darvins 200 year anniversary, I would not
accuse Darwin not
spotting 150 years ago that the process is entirely
directionless: so far we
have been riding on the rising wave crest, but now the
climate change may
well reach the tipping point of the wave crest in our
evolutionary phase
within the Earth's history.
SETI proves that the Earth system may be a typical
executor of the
'popcorn' evolution where the dominant leading species
is hell-bent to
dismantle its own collective ecological foundations.
People who say Darwin is so wrong, I think they should
look better at him
more like Isaac Newton of his age who created basic
theory of mechanics, it
later to be complemented with the additional
perspectives and complexities
of Albert Einsteins theory of relativity and quantum
phenomena.
In case of Darwin he could never have seen that man was
about to destroy
major Earth systems in their entirety such as the
Amazon rainforest, world
wide coral reef bleachings and ocean acidification,
fish out the ocean to
the last individual fish, starting to melt the Arctic
Ocean sea ice and
glaciers by all his greehouse gases emissions,
excessive recless tree
felling, fossil fuels use, and over-fishing destroying
the balances
from tropics to permafrost.
Your comments would much be appreciated how do we
encounter and re-train
ourselves away from this suggested deterministic
evolutionary outcome of a
more recent evolution so that we as a species do not
produce the final crest
and get back to Martian stable state of incapacitated
single cellular live
that ekes out its existence in the silts.
*I do believe the only solution behind all the other
soltutiosn is to
solve the global warming is education, education,
education.. towards
sustainable energy and land use and forms of
transportation to get between A
and B. People need to be educated to the sustainability
and then all the
rest of action will follow.*
Rgs,
Albert
------------------------------
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: [geo] Boston Globe-- Very Interesting SETI
perspective of Earth
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:55:15 +0000
E: [geo] Re: Boston Globe-- Very Interesting SETI
perspective of Earth
*SETI Implication to Geoengineering*
I have been a patron of The Planetary Society's
project, the Search for the
Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), that has been
scanning countless
nearby stars in the northern and southern hemisphere
with very large radio
telescopes.
Despite massive distributed computer networks and
excellent decryption
algorithms that are deployed to detect and listen into
any intelligent
communications that occur in the space using radio
communications. What the
SETI result is? Is there life, anything, just more
advanced than that which
NASA yesterday stipulated that may exist in Mars?
(References & links
below.)
The answer is: *NO.* The SETI scanning has never
produced any positive
result for advanced life and it seems that there is not
any single advanced
civilisations in nearby stars using radio
communications (due to pure lack
of radio signals which should be intense enough and
detectable with the
radio telescope technology we already posses).
We have the answer already. There is no intelligent
life out anywhere in
space, we need to ask the question: Why?
SETI forms an important consideration and possibly a
framework within
geoengineering why it may or may not be carried out.
The answer for the
apparent lack (or utmost scarcity) of intelligent
civilizations in tens of
thousands nearby solar systems scanned is readily
answered by "The Popcorn
Theory of Evolution". What the hell that means?
*The Popcorn Paradigm*
A Popcorn Theory of Evolution suggests that there will
always be an
inherent lack (or at least immense scarcity) of
advanced life forms in the
universe because within the destructive processes of
evolution itself the
populations pop in and out of existence (much alike the
vacuum energy that
materialises and annihilates upon itself in the vacuum).
No advanced life forms have been found in space as the
life pops-and-puffs,
in and out of the existence, by the whim of its
smallest constituent
element, individual, that makes up the advanced
populations in the planetary
ecosystems.
The reason for existence-threatening puff is found
within the innate
resource-hungriness of an individual that then drives
out the sustainability
of the Gaia (self-regulating ecosystems) to brinks of
collapses due to the
population booms in combination with associated
technological booms (that in
initial transition population growth phase facilitate
and help in sustenance
of all advanced civilizations) that are using radio
technologies to
communicate.
The 'deterministic grab' of an individual, its resource
hungriness, then
ultimately drives out all advanced specie systems into
their ultimate
collapses due to the insatiable resource-hungriness in
use resources for
imminent pleasure. Therefore, the Earth control system
is now transiting
from the productive pop phase to the puff phase, where
the leading species
crashes and takes with it much of the rest of the Gaia,
leaving no radio
operators behind.
When a capacity of species is very limited, such as the
arctic rodent
- lemming, which happily copulates every now and then,
enjoying pleasure of
sex and food and producing the maximum litter as much
as individual can, its
population grows and its consumption eventually reaches
the supply side
limit until no further resource for sustenance is left
and the numbers
collapse to zero at the core range occupied by that
species. Then from the
periphery ranges, few survivors emerge who will find
the decimated area
vacated and growing in plenty of food, and then happily
re-fill the area
where lemming population had been decimated to zero.
The implication of SETI research for geoengineering is
that the more
advanced a species becomes, the more will be its
ecological
reach. Therefore, every planetary system arrives to an
evolutionary tipping
point where the capacity of the advanced species'
(either in isolation or in
combination) reaches and exceeds the cliff-edge and the
entire,
self-regulatory, planetary Gaia system ecological high
structure falls apart
due to the dominant species (or group of species).
The puff-phase in the popcorn evolution then leaves
nothing behind but a
fossil planet (aside a few extremely simple,
single-cellular life forms
that no longer tip system back towards its earlier
complexity) as the
materials have been consumed and locked efficiently in
a way that they do
not re-emerge in the useable life span of ordinary sun.
Thus when it comes to technologically advanced species,
such as ourselves,
The Planetary Society's SETI programme searches suggest
that we are alone
amongst the tens of thousands solar systems scanned for
advanced
communications. This leading to conclusion that most
advanced life forms
must all have gone bust as the individual innate
survival instinct is much
greater force than the collective architecture for
specie's survival.
*Deterministic Nature of Evolution*
Therefore, the Search for the Extraterrestrial
Intelligence (SETI) is
suggestive that no advanced civilisation can exist on
sustainable basis and
therefore schemes such as geoengineering, well meaning,
may be directed
against the very nature of universe to create and
annihilate its advanced
civilizations due to a destabilising
resource-hungriness at the core of
individual survival instinct and individual pleasure
seeking that rejects
the ecological architectures.
Let me suggest, that a great deal more education is put
onto ecological
sustainability as the SETI research is quite suggestive
that no advanced
life seems to appear at present even in favourable
solar systems in so huge
numbers. Can geoengineers train Homo Sapiens to behave
sensible instructions
like dog, or does it retain individual independence of
Felix Catus, until
there is no more breathable air and food left for the
kitten?
By definition the evolution dictates that human species
inherited a complex
social hierarchy and behaviours from their ancestors,
the apes, that are
pack animals with a complex set of behaviours related
to determining the
individuals' position in the social hierarchy of the
species. All advanced
species do exhibit these various postures and other
means of nonverbal
communication that express their states of mind to
status and control
function. These sophisticated forms of social cognition
and communication,
often expressed through insatiable consumption, and
legitimised as need for
the infinite economic growth, may still be utilised for
mankind's
trainability and ability to fit into the Earth system
and into ecologically
sustainable social situations where individual social
hierarchy is still
expressible.
Let us resolve the problem of reaction and energise the
society like a war
economy to create energy and transport sustainably,
make plans in place for
adaptation when the adverse comes, and motivate backing
for geoengineering.
Let us make geoengineering the end and high apex of the
evolution to save
the world!
*Veli Albert Kallio*, FRGS
Frozen Isthmuses' Protection Campaign
of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans
References and Links to Primitive Life NASA Claims may
have been found:
*New light on Mars methane mystery *Scientists detect
seasonal releases of
methane gas on Mars and say either geological activity
or life could be the
cause.
*http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/7829315.stm*<http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/7829315.stm>
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/marsmethane.html
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/jan/HQ_09-006_Mars_Methane.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/main/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/marsmethane_media.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2133475.ece
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2137842.ece
> The trouble is that the Earth system is not
driven by some life
force, as in
> the Gaia theory. Nor is it driven by
suicidal tendencies, as in the
Medea
> idea. The Earth system has behaved in the
way it has, because it
needed to
> produce us. Putting that the other way
round, we wouldn't be here to
> appreciate our own development if the
universe wasn't precisely as it
is,
> and the history of our planet had not been
much as it has been. This
is the
> anthropic principle [3] [4], but I'm
applying to geological history.
> So, if you like, there may have been many
chance events during the
past four
> billion years that enabled human life to
develop eventually. And
there have
> almost certainly been chance events and
situations that have enabled
> civilisation to develop and the human
population to explode to its
current
> level.
> These chance events (and absence of events)
for our own survival are
> unlikely to continue. Therefore we are most
likely to have to
intervene for
> own survival. This message is most obvious
for the absence of events
such
> as super and large bodies colliding with
the Earth. We can
appreciate the
> danger, partly because we can think of it as
far in the future or
very
> theoretical, and therefore can be detached
about it [5].
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:01:03 -0800
Subject: [geo] Re: Boston Globe-- Very
Interesting anti-Gaia perspective
of Earth
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
A teleological, anthropomorphic description of
a "series of suicide
attempts" seems just as silly as a
teleological, anthropomorphic
description of a loving mother-goddess. In the
range of possible
states of the system, there are regions of
negative feedback and other
regions of positive feedback. The system spends
most of its time in
regions of negative feedback, for the obvious
reason that it tends to
stay in those when it's in them. But changes
such as the appearance
of a new metabolic pathway can nudge it into a
region of positive
feedback, sometimes leading to mass extinction.
Was the argument about anything but imagery and
rhetoric?
On Jan 16, 2:51 am, "John Gorman"
<[email protected]> wrote:
I also agree completely. i thought
Andrews email was very clear.
My hope is that the Royal Society's
report this spring will reach the
same conclusion.
john Gorman
----- Original Message -----
From: John Nissen
To: [email protected] ;
[email protected]
Cc: geoengineering ; Peter Read ;
[email protected]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:15
PM
Subject: [geo] Re: Boston Globe-- Very
Interesting anti-Gaia
perspective of Earth
Hi Andrew,
I agree with you absolutely:
I think we need to be focussed very
carefully on preventing any
significant sudden climate change.
According to my reading of the
Arctic sea ice data, this means we
have to act almost immediately if
we are to use 'gentle geoengineering'.
Something far more onerous
may
be required if we dawdle and argue for
a year or two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage
That to me is completely rational.
But why aren't people leaping
into action?
My point was that our "world view"
affects the way we consider our
present condition, and can produce irrational
behaviour. If we (as a
society) had a world view that expected disaster, then
we would be on the
lookout for imminent disasters to ward them off. As it
is, we are looking
at the Arctic sea ice disappearing, and behaving as if
we can't or shouldn't
try and save it - quite irrational.
Cheers,
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Lockley"
<[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: "geoengineering"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 10:16
AM
Subject: [geo] Re: Boston Globe-- Very
Interesting anti-Gaia
perspective of Earth
I think this debate has become overly
narrowed by it's focus on
survival. Our existence is testament
to to survival of a mere
fraction of our ancestors. The
genetic records suggests that at
several point in human history, entire
races or the species itself
were reduced to a few individuals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe
I think we should be looking at
preserving civilisation, not merely a
few scattered individuals eking out an
existence in a
post-apocalyptic
wasteland (a la Mad Max or Terminator).
Many writers have suggested that
civilisations of whatever complexity
just aren't that stable in the face of
even temporary climate change.
The Toba eruption, the Mayan collapse,
the Clovis event and the
1159BC
cooling event are examples among many.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10884-collapse-of-civilisations...
Further, the complexity of our society
makes it far less robust than
distributed, agrarian societies of the
past.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826501.500-the-demise-of-civi...
I think we need to be focussed very
carefully on preventing any
significant sudden climate change.
According to my reading of the
Arctic sea ice data, this means we
have to act almost immediately if
we are to use 'gentle geoengineering'.
Something far more onerous
may
be required if we dawdle and argue for
a year or two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage
A
2009/1/15 Bonnelle Denis
<[email protected]>:
> Dear all,
> I am surprised that time orders of
magnitude are not considered as
a main parameter in such a debate.
> It is an interesting idea that
"Although windows of stability are
possible, they are simply respites between catastrophic
boom-and-bust
cycles", but those windows have proved able to be
stable during tens of
millions years (ice ages oscillations - driven by
positive feedback forces -
have developed within a "tunnel" of precise limits
which operated as rather
efficient negative feedbacks, so I'm speaking only
about the major events
which really threatened life itself).
> I agree with the anthropic
principle, which says that things are
what they are but that if there had been thousands of
narrow escapes, very
likely we wouldn't be here to discuss them. So, things
are what they are but
there are some reasons that the number of such narrow
escapes is lower than
ten in 4 billion years.
> So, three time orders of magnitude
should be considered:
> - geological time: the Gaia model
would probably provide us with
some tens of millions years of security, even if in the
longer run the Medea
one could override it;
> - anthropogenic perturbation time:
will we, e.g., reach the 800 ppm
CO2 level in 2040 or 2100 or never?
> - science progress time: when will
there be enough knowledge for us
to either offer the economy clean and cheap solutions
such a renewable
energies, or be able to fix the climate (using
geoengineering) in a safe
way?
> Two conclusions can be drawn from
this:
> - the Gaia / Medea debate is not an
emergency from a practical
point of view (it may be relevant from a political /
symbolic one)
> - there is a race among
anthropogenic perturbation time and science
progress time, and every efforts should be considered
as adding up rather
than competing against each other: curbing the CO2
emissions is necessary to
slow the anthropogenic perturbation down, and
investigating, at the same
time, "fundamental applied physics", massive renewable
energies economics,
and geoengineering, is safer than relying on only one
tool to fix the
climate up.
> The third possible debate: "should
geoengineering be promoted in
order to protect us from Medea's dangers?" (surveying
and fighting every
dangerous asteroids, and biological equivalents of such
an idea) is, from a
theoretical point of view, equally interesting, but it
is clearly not that
urgent.
> Cheers,
> Denis Bonnelle.
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : [email protected]
[mailto:
[email protected]] De la part de John
Nissen
> Envoyé : mercredi 14 janvier 2009
18:08
> À : [email protected];
[email protected]
> Cc : geoengineering; Peter Read;
[email protected];
Martin J Rees
> Objet : [geo] Re: Boston Globe--
Very Interesting anti-Gaia
perspective of Earth
> Dear all,
> I think this kind of life-force
thinking runs very deep, and
prevents us
> acting appropriately.
> Just about the whole environment
movement seems to be based on a
thinking
> that the planet is naturally stable,
and if only mankind can behave
> "naturally", all will be well - the
negative feedbacks will kick in
to halt
> the current global warming and bring
the temperature back to
normal.
> Putting vast amounts of CO2 in the
atmosphere is not "natural".
Putting
> sulphur in the air is not "natural".
Both are CO2 and sulphur
compounds are
> seen as pollutants, and therefore,
by definition bad.
> This leads to illogical behaviour.
We have to reduce sulphur
emissions,
> although this leads to exacerbate
global warming - possibly causing
the
> visible acceleration in global
warming in mid 80s shown in the
glacier ice
> mass loss record (a good proxy for
global temperature) [1] [2]. I
know that
> the argument is supposedly all about
acid rain and asthma, but it
has
> inhibited our clear thinking about
the possibility of using
stratospheric
> aerosols to cool the planet.
> And, as another illogicality, our
view of CO2 as pollutant makes us
think
> that, because CO2 has caused global
warming, therefore cutting our
emissions
> will solve all our problems. This
blinds us to seeing that the
Arctic sea
> ice problem cannot be solved by
cutting CO2 emissions and we have
to apply
> geoengineering.
> But geoengineering in general is
seen as unnatural. Our instinct
is to let
> the planet sort itself out, with
minimum interference from
ourselves. We
> seem even happy for another 2
degrees global warming, although
global
> warming is already causing enormous
problems.
> The trouble is that the Earth system
is not driven by some life
force, as in
> the Gaia theory. Nor is it driven
by suicidal tendencies, as in
the Medea
> idea. The Earth system has behaved
in the way it has, because it
needed to
> produce us. Putting that the other
way round, we wouldn't be here
to
> appreciate our own development if
the universe wasn't precisely as
it is,
> and the history of our planet had
not been much as it has been.
This is the
> anthropic principle [3] [4], but I'm
applying to geological
history.
> So, if you like, there may have been
many chance events during the
past four
> billion years that enabled human
life to develop eventually. And
there have
> almost certainly been chance events
and situations that have
enabled
> civilisation to develop and the
human population to explode to its
current
> level.
> These chance events (and absence of
events) for our own survival
are
> unlikely to continue. Therefore we
are most likely to have to
intervene for
> own survival. This message is most
obvious for the absence of
events such
> as super and large bodies colliding
with the Earth. We can
appreciate the
> danger, partly because we can think
of it as far in the future or
very
> theoretical, and therefore can be
detached about it [5].
> What we seem unable to do is to
appreciate an impending disaster
which could
> take us all out. We cannot think
that such a thing is possible.
Yet it is
> staring us in the face. It is the
Arctic sea ice disappearance and
> consequent massive methane release.
That could kill us all, and
most of
> life, through global heating far
above the 6 degrees hell mark.
> Cheers,
> John
> [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_mass_balance
> [2] See also Haeberli comments in:
...
read more »
------------------------------
Are you a PC? Upload your PC story and show the
world<http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/122465942/direct/01/>
--
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
