MISLEADING COMMENTS:
It is very dangerous criticism and unfair as Jim Hansen has put his skin deep in and out to point out the dangers of climate change. An unhelpful criticism like that sinking into the political patrons, and the rest assured, there will be no money and then no geoengineering. Many on the emissinons curtailment camp point out to Winston Churchill as an example to his ability to re-engineer the economy to respond to the threat. In a just few years the UK industry was converted to supply aeroplanes and munitions. As the car industry is going to decline in the US and UK due to falling demand and cheap cars from elsewhere, what is better than industrial conversion to make them to turn up wind turbines, solar energy gensets, insulation materials, and - geoengineering gadgets. Neither renewable energy nor geoengineering can be substantially implemented without establisment of approppriate industrial base for both. Is someone just trying to create clever experiments whitout any intent to fix the climate problem? If we want a fix, there is issue of quantitative response and to respond quantitatively large enough industries must emerge to build gadgets and services to dent the climatic forcing of the anthorpogenic greenhouse gases. Therefore, the mutual exclusion of of one to the detriment of others, is no go. Furthermore, the ocean acidification is an unwelcome chemical process entirely on its own and mere temperature adjustment will not change pH that has moved from slighly alkaline to acidic. We still have further issues like land use, and the unquantified risk of abrubt climate change. Were event like sudden ice sheet land containment failure (paradigm of the Group B of Countries and Nations) to occur, it could be impossible to make marine geoengineering. The unknown or very poorly manifested geophysical tipping points, labelled "X-factors": the Indian Ocean quake pushed up a mountain ridge 300 miles long 1.5 kilometres high in 48 hours. This was not supposed to have happened instantaneously, 48 hrs, but over Myrs!! The Group B of Nations (Government in Bolivia in Podznan) point to native recollections of massive sudden coastal floods recorded by 270 indigenous nations suggestive of ice sheet land containment failures and other X-factors, not seen since the end of ice age turmoil. The world-wide spread of flood stories to them is explicable by a generic sudden sea surge associated with a sliding ice sheet and high fluctuation in geothermal forcings on climate. The Group B paradigms are not yet accepted by the Western Group, but the sudden montain range formation recently is a warning sign that all the light might not prevail in the limelight of the Group A nations who are a cause (and investigator) of the climate change. Nature does not act based on quantum logic on the climate change, Group A and Group B paradigms cannot peacefully coexist and die like Schrodinger's Cat when probed. Multiverses and multiple solutions are in the realms of mathematics and quantum microcosm. The macrocosm where climate change occurs sustains paradimgs based on Boolean Logic, either - or, thus the different realities of Group A and Group B nations' paradigms cannot both be right at the same time and co-exist in parallel multiverses. The effective complaint the Worlds Indigenous Nations Summit made as their primary plea to the United Nations General Assembly on ice sheet failure in post-sea ice Arctic will, potentially, have major interference to successful implementation of geoengineering as much as to any other conceivable activity where port services are required. I would like to commend Jim Hansen for his excellent sticking out of his head of the Group A nations, the Western Countries, and His Excellency President Evo Morales of Bolivia, sticking his head out boldy for the Group B nations in Podznan. HE President Morales has been acting as an unofficial spokesman for the Group of Amerindian nations who disagree our western paradigm (Milutin Milankovit's slow orbital forcing as the cause of glaciations), who gave a traditional voice (of sudden geothermal pulses as the ice age cause) with ice sheet slide-out ending the ice age as recollected by the less well-off nations who occupied 1/3 of world's landmass before Europeans arrived. In particular, in Podznan the Group B, HE President Evo Morale's, pointed to the large spatial separations of the ice sheets during ice age: the Laurentide Ice sheet (Hudson Bay, North America), the Weischelian Ice Sheet (the Baltic etc, Europe) and the Patagonian Ice Sheet (Argentina, South America) they all disappeared rather simultaneously. If so, and Greenland destabilises in the post-sea ice Arctic, then 60% of world homes may well get flooded, because probably it means that the Antarctic Ice sheet also responds. The Group B "water-world" is rubbish to the Western mind, but bear in mind, that all these statements including the UN General Assembly complaint have gone through rigorous vetting procedures in their own system based on assesment of their native recollections of events representing a different case history paradigm. Until Group B stipulations are experimentally checked out and disproven, we have no right to dismiss them. Until then they remain for us in the West as X-factors, un-quantified, as much as was one's prediction that there would ever rise a newly-formed 1.5 kilometer high mountain ridge, standing in the Indian Ocean 48 hours after the quake; end of old paradigm. So, don't blame others trying to respond to the climate change, but blame the polluters and inaction on climate change if everything goes suddenly bershek like in the Indian Ocean. There are many things that can go wrong and badly, both known and unknown, both agreed and disagreed, but blaming each others different perspectives is just disgusting and leads into a dysfunctional response to the grave danger. Kind regards, Albert Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:55:50 -0400 Subject: [geo] Re: Post on geoengineering From: [email protected] To: [email protected] CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] If David Hawkins knows of a way to accomplish geoengineering research absent third party funding, it might be helpful if he proffers his knowledge. In the mean time, I suppose he would use OIF (the commercial investment) as an example. Otherwise, he simple pricks the skin of the geoengineers without helping whatever. David Schnare On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Hawkins, Dave <[email protected]> wrote: 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 </div _________________________________________________________________ View your Twitter and Flickr updates from one place – Learn more! http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/137984870/direct/01/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
