I submitted this to the Revkin Dot Earth Post in the New York times on John Holdren, U.S. science advisor, and geoengineering. I find it also inconceivable that this group is not considering and debating these aspects of the issue. I would expect many pro and con views, deep philosophical discussion, and some of you might even wake up to funding opportunities. I do not need to explain why? -gene
Further to my earlier comments and consistent with current worldwide concern about global temperature change (such as it is); it is inconceivable that the U.S. would not take the view that control of global or even relatively local climate is of strategic economic, quality of life, medical, and even military importance. With respect to the latter it is well known that the Little Ice Age had major negative impact on Napoleon's military aspirations. The Russian winter destroyed Hitler's military aspirations in that country. It caused millions of deaths and major starvation in Europe. It brought back the potato as a crop in European agriculture. No doubt it delayed the advance of science and medicine. I have no doubt many of you could add to the list of reasons climate control would be important. How could our government (Science Advisor John Holdren) take such a cavalier attitude about control of climate? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
