(I just noticed Alan's post-- mine responds to those prior) Having been around this group for a year or so now, I'm honestly pretty surprised at what feels like sudden vitriol here. Where is all of it coming from? It certainly feels directed at the wrong targets.
John-- regarding your point, there were plenty of people speaking up at the NAS meeting over the last two days pushing for rapid and immediate deployment-- and asserting that it was all but a foregone conclusion that we needed to do some of these things and the sooner the better. Ken, along w/ Rob Socolow and others, provided a very neutral canvas (by co-organizing the meeting) on which to let these comments and various opinions play out. I thought he showed amazing restraint many number of times in which it would have been easy to take one side or the other--- or to rebuke a few when it may have been needed. Both he and Rob and many others were thoughtful, eloquent and poised in a way that I thought did great credit to this group. You should be so lucky. I don't think Ken wins, or the rest of us win, when he takes the side of championing this cause to the exclusion of a moderated, nuanced and self-reflective perspective. He has a different role to play, and that is just the simple fact of it. There are a world of doubters, disbelievers and uninformed skeptics out there (i.e. nearly every thinking person who has not yet had the benefit of working through the rationale for this) who will immediately recoil if they see a bunch of mad-scientists waving the GE flag. Let us thank our stars that Ken has not chosen this path. I think the outside world needs to see embodied in him the spectrum of points of view-- but with a clear directionality towards providing a path forward for the necessary research to happen. That is exactly what he has done. I also believe he is correct that DARPA (and other military orgs who had a distinct though quiet presence at the NAS meeting) can not jump in to this with both feet. Certainly, we can benefit from some of their thinking and support as we move forward, but they cannot be first out of the gate with a major GE research agenda. While I disagree with Dale Jamieson on probably more than a few points, he made one quite appropriate remark at the end--which should already be patently obvious to all of us here-- it is very unlikely that the US will reach any substantive agreement on emissions reductions this year at Copenhagen. I believe the current Chinese position is a calculated attempt to take a firm stand, which may be softened slightly at the table this fall, but I also believe it serves to make it more diifficult for the US to take any serious action on emissions as well. Unfortunately, the accurate perception will be that the US isn't making as much progress as it should be. For a US military agency to be pushing a GE agenda in that context--- or even for the US research establishment to be strongly pushing a GE agenda-- will be difficult, if not impossible to pull off. Thankfully we have a little air cover now from the EU which has announced some early support for research, and also from the UK which is engaged in its own assessment that will likely lead to research initiatives. But these are not yet enough of a hall pass for DARPA or others to jump in aggressively. I think there should be a little more leading by example here, and a few less tomatoes from the wings. If you have a problem with Ken, then get out in front of him and push harder. As my old scoutmaster used to say, "Walk the talk." Dan On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:17 AM, David Schnare <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
