Gene says-- "Any honest scientists will agree that you cannot prove the negative; you cannot prove that it will not be affordable; and you cannot prove that it will not be available in time. In contrast dishonest scientists can make it not happen by ignoring or deprecating the possibility; or by preventing it from getting funding to establish feasibility, timing and cost." This statement is correct whether the word "it" represents geo-engineering or emissions mitigation. But not everyone who raises questions about either approach should be characterized as dishonest. And we should recognize that "funding" is not the only tool available to society.
________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eugene I. Gordon Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 11:10 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Revkin Subject: [geo] Post on geoengineering This appeared today in the New York Times Dot Earth post by Andy Revkin on Tipping Points. Please send comments and particularly send items to Andy that he should include in an article on geoengineering. Many of you are just a prestigious as the people he includes in his Posts. You can help him get it done and get some discussion going. If you don't follow these posts you may not know that 'denier' is the term used AGW aficionados to describe those who don't agree with them. I am making a small twist of the knife -gene Andy, I continue to find it amazing that in all these discussions, including this one on tipping points and the value of using it as a scare tactic in forcing action on reducing use of fossil fuel, reality has not set in. I was glad to see some experts in your Post point out that in effect that 'crying polar bear', as in crying 'wolf', can be counter productive. Experts like Hansen keep pushing 'reduction' when it is clear that they are working against a prevailing force or resistance that will only give slowly if at all. The real deniers are those who are pushing for a change that cannot occur to any great extent in the next half century and possibly longer. Even more amazing is that these deniers never consider or discuss alternate solutions such as geoengineering. In my opinion the human mind is capable of producing viable techniques for reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface or removing CO2 from the atmosphere long before it will be able to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Any honest scientists will agree that you cannot prove the negative; you cannot prove that it will not be affordable; and you cannot prove that it will not be available in time. In contrast dishonest scientists can make it not happen by ignoring or deprecating the possibility; or by preventing it from getting funding to establish feasibility, timing and cost. Hansen totally ignores it. That is incredible! By my limited definition that makes Hansen a dishonest scientist. That cannot be refuted because that limited claim is totally true. Finally I have to say Andy you are failing us by not including geoengineering in the discussion, by not posting related comments by experts, by not getting opinions from people like Chu and other government 'experts'. And you readers please attack what I say. Produce your arguments and URLs that pooh pooh geoengineering. You don't and you have not in the past despite many past comments about geoengineering by me. You deniers, where are your competitive juices? - Gene G, New Jersey --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
