I obviously can't speak for Ken, but I don't think there's any doubt that he is in very much favor of geoengineering research. That he worries that the research could somehow slow momentum on emissions reductions seems only reasonable. For myself, I respect the fact that he appears to be openly wrestling with the complexities of the issue. In that sense, he's an exemplar of the Fitzgerald quote about how "the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still function."
Then again, that quote appears in a book called "The Crack-Up"... On Apr 10, 3:20 pm, "Alvia Gaskill" <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm saying that you can have a position on geoengineering (now, never, > research, no research, other), but you can't take every position and expect > anyone to take you seriously. If you do take A position, expect criticism. > That simply comes with the territory. > > Some scientists are in a better position to offer opinions on this than > others. Where the great majority of scientists have gone wrong, I believe > is in assuming that geoengineering is a bad idea and embracing this > unconditionally or looking only for evidence to support this conclusion is > sufficient to make the case. That's inductive logic and it's not how we are > supposed to do science. Look at how the science media and "scientists" > embraced the study that found significant ozone depletion from use of > stratospheric aerosols. Then look at the response when it was shown (by me > and accepted by the authors) that their assumptions were incorrect (CO2 > won't double by 2017 and thus aerosol levels needed to offset that level of > forcing won't be needed for 30 or 40 more years after which the active > chlorine will have greatly declined to below 1980 levels). There was no > response. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "dasilva" <[email protected]> > To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 5:56 PM > Subject: [geo] Re: geoeng. article in the Virginia Quarterly Review > > So, Alvia, are you needling Ken? Or are you genuinely asking whether > or not scientists should be advocates? > > On Apr 10, 1:57 pm, "Alvia Gaskill" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Recently seen on wall at UC Berkeley: IN CASE OF FIRE, DO NOT CALL INEZ > > FUNG*. And the interview with Caldeira once again demonstrates why he is > > such an effective advocate for geoengineering research. Or maybe he isn't. > > Or maybe he shouldn't try to be. Or maybe it doesn't matter if he is or > > not. Or if something really bad happens, someone else can be an effective > > spokesman for geoengineering research or maybe not. I'm not sure. What do > > you think Ken? > > > *Also, in case of Type II Diabetes, don't ask Inez Fung for advice on drug > > therapies, cause it's just treatin' the symptoms and you won't last long > > enough for the cure anyway. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "dasilva" <[email protected]> > > To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 3:20 PM > > Subject: [geo] geoeng. article in the Virginia Quarterly Review > > > See "The Ass's Dilemma" > > >http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2009/spring/joseph-climate-engineer... > > > Here's an exerpt: > > > “I’m not a fan,” Inez Fung said flatly when I asked her opinion of > > stratospheric aerosol injection. A petite woman in a pageboy haircut, > > Fung is a prominent figure in climatology—professor of atmospheric > > science at the University of California, Berkeley, co-director of the > > Berkeley Institute of the Environment, and, like Caldeira, a > > contributor to the IPCC, which, in 2008, shared the Nobel Peace Prize > > with Al Gore. I met her in her office last April in Berkeley’s McCone > > Hall. She sat in her office chair, arms folded tightly across her > > chest, one foot bobbing impatiently under the desk. > > > “You don’t think it could serve as an insurance policy in the event of > > abrupt climate change?” I asked. > > > “Heavens, no. What abrupt climate changes are you worried about?” > > > “Well, what if the Greenland ice sheet starts to go far faster than > > anticipated? Would it make sense then to decrease temperatures in the > > hopes of stopping that process, since we’re talking about something > > like a twenty-foot rise in sea level? Would the ramifications be so > > serious that we could justify . . . ?” > > > “I think a much more important thing is to say sea level will rise,” > > she answered. “Preventing it is just delaying it. I mean all this > > geoengineering is just delaying . . . It’s gonna go sooner or later.” > > > “But wouldn’t it at least buy us time?” > > > “What are we doing in the interim if the whole strategy is to buy > > time? If we just continue to squander energy, I wouldn’t support it.” > > > Her foot bounced under her desk. > > > “Geoengineering is not science fiction, okay?” she continued. “How do > > we test it? How do we know that it would work? The scientist’s > > responsibility is not just to propose wild ideas. The scientist’s > > responsibility is to say, ‘How do we test them?’” > > > Her frustration seemed to grow as our interview progressed, and when I > > finally gathered my things to leave, I thanked her for putting up with > > my questions. She said, “No, no, it’s important not to just look at > > what is the last resort and ignore responsible action. It’s very > > American to want a quick fix, but the energy problem is the principal > > challenge for humankind—the two energy problems: not just the > > squandering of energy, but also the imbalance in energy access in the > > world.” > > > “Sure,” I answered, “but recognizing that doesn’t do anything to solve > > the problem of climate change.” > > > She took a deep breath before answering wearily. “There is no solving > > the problem. There is no solving the problem. All it is is slowing the > > symptoms.” --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
