Dear Ken:
I'd be happy to be wrong, if you can show you are right. But you are
completely wrong - at least in Washington, D.C.
This is not about science. This is about policy and polity. It is about
assumptions, not facts. It is about the competition for resources, not
their preservation.
Further, you make the following statement:
"I find it odd that people who are working hard to establish a funded
research program that can lead to environmental risk reduction are pilloried
for expressing some sense of doubt about the true faith.
"Science is about skepticism. If we stop doubting our own beliefs, we
become true believers.
"I have no desire to be a true believer."
If these statements were true, then you would be perpared to be skeptical
about GCMs, skeptical about GHG's role in warming, and skeptical about those
who disallow debate on the underlying assumptions and presumptions from
which federal regulation and legislation build. You would question the IPCC
summary report and the policy implications that stem therefrom.
Finally, as to this group's attention to your perspectives. You are the
moderator. If you don't like where the discussion is going, then go ahead
and censor it. You are free to be the center of attention. This is
America, and google groups are private. You can do whatever you want. This
is not a democracy. That is reserved for government. That is for open
discussion about issues. That is why there are town cryers who do not
whisper about important public meetings, but who yell it loudly. This group
is not the NRC/NAS, where all should be invited to participate with broad
public dissemination and loud public attention. This is a private group,
your private group, where one can demand attention.
I'll now be very silent and listen to you about "true faith," or I may not.
It's up to me whether I listen to you, right up until you, as moderator,
banish me, and others, from the group. That too is up to you.
Cheers,
David S.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]>wrote:
> Alvia, [and David S.,]
>
> I think you are completely wrong.
>
> I think this National Academy meeting was a historic meeting in that it was
> the first time that I know of that a National Academy ran an open public
> meeting on intentional alteration of climate. I think it may be a key step
> towards a national research program.
>
> Some people in this email group see the world in black and white.I am not
> one of them.
>
> I suggest that those who are prepared to intentionally alter Earth's
> climate without some sense of fear and trepidation fail to appreciate the
> complex set of issues we are facing. I believe ambivalence is an appropriate
> attitude when faced with an unpleasant set of choices.
>
> The comment that David Schnare made in criticism of my remarks ('Here's
> your choice - we all die, or we don't all die. Pick one and enough of this
> "conflicted" sillyness.') illustrates the kind of hyperbolic, simplistic,
> and binary thinking we should be working to avoid.
>
> Regarding my earlier remarks about DARPA: I continue to believe that if
> DARPA took the lead it would fuel international suspicions about US
> motivations for wanting to develop effective climate intervention
> approaches, and ultimately make it more difficult to develop these
> technologies.
>
> Regarding Alan Robock: I often disagree with Alan's tone and framing and
> have argued with him publicly, but he also happens to be correct on most
> matters of fact -- and where we disagree on matters of fact, these are
> differences that can be maintained by well-informed people, where more
> research is needed to resolve uncertainty. Alan is a good hard working
> scientist who is doing his best to develop a sound scientific basis for
> making sound policy decisions. He annoys me sometimes as I am sure I annoy
> him. But that is no reason to question his value as a scientist.
>
> I find it odd that people who are working hard to establish a funded
> research program that can lead to environmental risk reduction are pilloried
> for expressing some sense of doubt about the true faith.
>
> Science is about skepticism. If we stop doubting our own beliefs, we become
> true believers.
>
> I have no desire to be a true believer.
>
> Best,
>
> Ken
>
> PS. I sent an email to this group on May 29 with acopy of the proposed
> agenda for the workshop, the email specifying the location to submit written
> input to, and a link to a web site that at the time had instructions on how
> to request to attend the meeting. I was suprised my email received so
> little attention, but it is becoming obvious that my perspectives are
> becoming irrelevant to this group.
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/1c6c05c85f7fad13
>
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
> +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Margaret Leinen <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> While many meetings indeed do little to advance thinking about
>> geoengineering, I think that the mere fact that the NAS convened this
>> meeting did a lot. The study by the Royal Society, the workshop and the
>> inclusion of its results by the NAS in their 'climate choices' study both
>> show substantial acceptance of the importance of geoengineering research
>> by
>> mainstream academies. This is enormous progress in a very short
>> timeframe.
>> And the studies are important stepping stones to federal funding in the
>> US.
>>
>> The opportunity to attend the NAS workshop was on the web, but it wasn't
>> advertised, so I do understand the frustration about attendance.
>> --
>> Margaret Leinen, PhD.
>> Climate Response Fund
>> 119 S. Columbus Street
>> Alexandria, VA 22314
>> 202-415-6545
>>
>>
>>
>> > From: Alvia Gaskill <[email protected]>
>> > Reply-To: <[email protected]>
>> > Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:52:10 -0400
>> > To: <[email protected]>, geoengineering <
>> [email protected]>
>> > Subject: [geo] Re: NPR radio story on National Academy geoengineering
>> workshop
>> >
>> > These meetings accomplish little or nothing as it is the same people
>> saying
>> > the same things over and over again. Just filling up that resume. If
>> you
>> > are truly so conflicted about the subject, (doubt it) why don't you get
>> out of
>> > the business or better yet, stop interfering with others who are in it
>> (The
>> > I'm going to the DARPA meeting to stop it stunt you pulled a while
>> back).
>> > Better yet, next time you guys schedule one of these get togethers, you
>> can
>> > announce you are going to hold it so you can stop it. At least announce
>> it
>> > far enough in advance so we can all plan not to go. BTW, I've come up
>> with a
>> > new job description for people like Alan Robock and Dale Jameison:
>> > Professional Critic. Since they are both employed by universities,
>> let's ad
>> > an un to that. Yeah, that sounds right: Unprofessional Critic. More
>> > candidates as I get time.
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original
>> > Scientists Debate Shading Earth As Climate Fix
>> > by Richard Harris
>> >
>> > All Things Considered, June 16, 2009 ยท Engineering our climate to stop
>> > global warming may seem like science fiction, but at a recent National
>> Academy
>> > of Sciences meeting, scientists discussed some potential geoengineering
>> > experiments in earnest.
>> >
>> > Climate researcher Ken Caldeira was skeptical when he first heard
>> about the
>> > idea of shading the Earth a decade ago in a talk by nuclear weapons
>> scientist
>> > Lowell Wood.
>> >
>> > "He basically said, 'We don't have to bother with emissions reduction.
>> We
>> > can just throw aerosols - little dust particles - into the stratosphere,
>> and
>> > that'll cool the earth.' And I thought, 'Oh, that'll never work,' "
>> Caldeira
>> > said.
>> >
>> > But when Caldeira sat down to study this, he was surprised to discover
>> that,
>> > yes, it would work, and for the very same reasons that big volcanoes
>> cool the
>> > Earth when they erupt. Fine particles in the stratosphere reflect
>> sunlight
>> > back into space. And doing it would be cheap, to boot.
>> >
>> > Caldeira conducts research on climate and carbon cycles at the
>> Carnegie
>> > Institution at Stanford University. During the past decade, he said,
>> talk
>> > about this idea has moved from cocktail parties to very sober meetings,
>> like
>> > the workshop this week put on by the National Academy of Sciences.
>> >
>> > "Frankly, I'm a little ambivalent about all this," he said during a
>> break in
>> > the meeting. "I've been pushing very hard for a research program, but
>> it's a
>> > little scary to me as it becomes more of a reality that we might be able
>> to
>> > toy with our environment, or our whole climate system at a planetary
>> scale."
>> >
>> > Attempting to geoengineer a climate fix raises many questions, like
>> when you
>> > would even consider trying it. Caldeira argued that we should have the
>> > technology at the ready if there's a climate crisis, such as collapsing
>> ice
>> > sheets or drought-induced famine. At the academy's meeting, Harvard
>> > University's Dan Schrag agreed with that - up to a point.
>> >
>> > "I think we should consider climate engineering only as an emergency
>> > response to a climate crisis, but I question whether we're already
>> > experiencing a climate crisis - whether we've already crossed that
>> threshold,"
>> > Schrag said.
>> >
>> > In reality, carbon-dioxide emissions globally are on a runaway pace,
>> despite
>> > rhetoric promising to control them. University of Calgary's David Keith
>> > suggested that we should consider moving toward experiments that would
>> test
>> > ideas on a global scale - and do it sooner rather than later.
>> >
>> > "It's not clear that during some supposed climate emergency would be
>> the
>> > right time to try this new and unexplored technique," Keith said.
>> >
>> > And experiments could create disasters. Alan Robock of Rutgers
>> University
>> > cataloged a long list of risks. Particles in the stratosphere that block
>> > sunlight could also damage the ozone layer, which protects us from harsh
>> > ultraviolet light. Or altering the stratosphere could reduce
>> precipitation in
>> > Asia, where it waters the crops that feed 2 billion people.
>> >
>> > Imagine if we triggered a drought and famine while trying to cool the
>> > planet, Robock said. On the plus side, it's also possible that diffusing
>> > sunlight could end up boosting agriculture, he said.
>> >
>> > "We need to evaluate all these different, contrasting impacts to see
>> whether
>> > it really would have an effect on food or not," he said. "Maybe it's a
>> small
>> > effect. We really don't know that yet. We need more research on that."
>> >
>> > Thought experiments to date have focused primarily on the risks of
>> putting
>> > sulfur dust in the stratosphere. There are many other geoengineering
>> ideas -
>> > like making clouds brighter by spraying seawater particles into the air.
>> But
>> > none of them is simple.
>> >
>> > "I don't think there is a quick and easy answer to employing even one
>> of
>> > those quick and cheap and easy solutions," said social scientist Susanne
>> > Moser.
>> >
>> > There's no mechanism in place to reach a global consensus about doing
>> this -
>> > and a consensus seems unlikely in any event. Who gets to decide where to
>> set
>> > the global thermostat? And will this simply become an excuse not to
>> control
>> > our emissions to begin with? These were all questions without answers at
>> the
>> > academy's meeting.
>> >
>> > Message -----
>> > From: Ken Caldeira
>> > To: geoengineering
>> > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 6:17 PM
>> > Subject: [geo] NPR radio story on National Academy geoengineering
>> workshop
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105483423
>> >
>> > ___________________________________________________
>> > Ken Caldeira
>> >
>> > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
>> > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>> >
>> > [email protected]; [email protected]
>> > http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
>> > +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>>
>>
>>
>
> >
>
--
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
