Ken has got a point: ETC have simply waded in and called people
'tricksters', making an imputation of bad faith without even waiting
to read what they have to say.  This is not a serious approach and
makes genuine dialogue difficult if not impossible. Stephen Salter,
judging by his mild reply to Diana, must have the hide of a rhinoceros
and/or the patience of a saint!

On Aug 30, 2:06 pm, "Eugene I. Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I disagree. My experience is that anyone who doesn’t swallow the whole
> potion is a denier. So I do not attack the behavior of the advocates (hyper
> greens you call them). I simply point out what is lacking from their
> argument(s) and assert over and over and over again how science works to
> reach the stage called  theory and why anthropogenic CO2 caused warming is
> only a part of the total global warming story and stands only as an
> incomplete hypothesis; hardly even approaching the stage of theory despite
> the massive research because of the components of global warming are
> unpredictable (e.g. sunspots).
>
> Sometimes I point to the 540 million year history of the Earth’s climate and
> show how the current warming is part of a long term upward trend that is
> being exacerbated by but not caused by anthropogenic  CO2 emissions and why
> Geoengineering will be needed in any case.
>
> We should stand our ground and be firm but not insulting or demeaning. It
> only diminishes us. History will record that it is the hyper greens that are
> the assholes.
>
> -gene
>
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lane, Lee O.
> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 8:10 AM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Cc: geoengineering; [email protected]
> Subject: [geo] Re: ETC Group on Royal Society Report: The Emperor's New
> Climate: Geoengineering as 21st century fairytale
>
> Dear David,
>
> In one sense, I agree with you. It can seem futile to engage in any kind of
> debate with hyper-greens. In another sense, though, there is a problem with
> allowing their claims and charges to go unanswered.
>
> People who pride themselves on their environmental "ethics" often attack the
> motives and integrity of those with whom they disagree. The ETC group seems
> clearly to fall into this category, but they are far from being alone. In
> fact, such attacks are standard operating procedure for much of organized
> environmentalism and for its academic fellow travelers.
>
> It is difficult to know how to respond, but I think that Ken is right to
> point out the inappropriate nature of this behavior. Maybe the ETC group is
> too marginal even within the green movement to warrant much attention. The
> tactic, though, is not at all marginal. To the contrary, it plays a large
> and corrosive role in public discourse. Those of us who would like to see a
> more dispassionate discussion of the issues should, I think, join in
> condemning such behavior - even if we do so without great hopes of effecting
> change.
>
> Lee Lane    
>
>   _____  
>
> From: [email protected] on behalf of David Schnare
> Sent: Sat 8/29/2009 12:39 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: geoengineering; [email protected]
> Subject: [geo] Re: ETC Group on Royal Society Report: The Emperor’s New
> Climate: Geoengineering as 21st century fairytale
>
> The more you complain about ETC, the more credibility they get.  Just speak
> to their errors and to the need for the research.  If asked specifically
> about the ETC, simply explain that they are a politically enabled group that
> has not done their homework.
>
> You need thick (thicker) skin.
>
> d
>
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I find it offensive that the ETC group has resorted to calling the
> authors of the Royal Society report "tricksters".
>
> "The Royal Society will play an important role in this performance by
> offering a prestigious platform and global microphone to some modern-
> day tricksters."
>
> http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=762
>
> It is one thing to suggest that we are uninformed, misinformed, or
> even deluded, but another thing entirely to suggest that we are acting
> with the intent to "trick" people into doing things that might harm
> the environment. Charges that we are acting in bad faith are
> unfounded, reckless, repugnant, and malicious.
>
> ETC owes an apology to me and the other authors of the Royal Society
> report.
>
> Furthermore:
>
> ETC says the emperor has no clothes. We are calling for an examination
> of the emperor's garments. ETC asks us instead to close our eyes and
> trust them blindly.
>
> If ETC really believes the emperor really has no clothes, they should
> be happy to join us in calls for an investigation into the emperor's
> clothing.
>
> Best,
>
> Ken
>
> On Aug 29, 4:31 am, Stephen Salter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dear Diana
>
> > Thank you for the copy of your report about the Royal Society.
>
> > I am attaching a paper which tries to show the effects of an experiment
> > on cloud albedo control and how difficult it will be to detect a change
> > big enough to offset the thermal effects of double CO2 or the greenhouse
> > equivalent amount of methane which is coming off at an accelerating rate
> > from the Arctic and Siberia.
>
> > Your paper mentioned costs. My estimate for the total cost of a cloud
> > albedo research project will less than 0.38 on the Ronaldo scale with
> > annual running costs of a system to 'hold the fort' of about 1.5.   One
> > Ronaldo is £80 million and replaces the previously used G8 summit unit.
> > The latter rose from £85 million at Gleneagles to £285 million at Lake
> > Toya and is now regarded as being too volatile.
>
> > Stephen Salter
>
> > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
> > School of Engineering and Electronics
> > University of Edinburgh
> > Mayfield Road
> > Edinburgh EH9 3JL
> > Scotland
> > tel +44 131 650 5704
> > fax +44 131 650 5702
> > Mobile  07795 203 195
> > [email protected]http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs 
>
> > Diana Bronson wrote:
> > > ETC Group
> > > News Release
> > > 28 August 2009
> > >www.etcgroup.org<http://www.etcgroup.org/>
>
> > > SCIENCE FICTIONS: UK’S ROYAL SOCIETY TO ISSUE MAJOR REPORT
> > > ON GEOENGINEERING SEPTEMBER 1;
> > > BAN REAL-WORLD EXPERIMENTS, SAYS ETC GROUP
>
> > > The oldest scientific academy in the world, the UK’s Royal Society,
> > > will release its long-awaited report on geoengineering September 1st
> > > 2009 in London. The report, drafted by a panel dominated by
> > > geoengineering enthusiasts, is widely expected to recommend that the
> > > government support more research and perhaps even real-world
> > > experimentation of these controversial new technologies that
> > > intentionally manipulate the earth’s climate on a large scale with the
> > > aim of lessening the effects of climate change.
>
> > > “Geoengineering is a bad idea, and, unfortunately, it may transform
> > > Lord Rees’s book from musings to memoir,” says Diana Bronson,
> > > researcher for the international technology watchdog ETC Group,
> > > referring to the Royal Society President’s 2004 book, Our Final
> > > Century, which suggested that humans may not live to see the end of
> > > the 21st century.
>
> > > Geoengineering can refer to sulphate-injections in the stratosphere
> > > and cloud-whitening to reflect sunlight away from the earth,
> > > fertilization of the oceans with iron nano-particles to try to
> > > increase their carbon-carrying capacity, intentionally modifying
> > > global weather patterns, among other techniques.
>
> > > “The Royal Society may be cautious in their report but, in fact, when
> > > it comes to geoengineering, a yellow light can quickly turn green. For
> > > the climate to take notice, any geoengineering scheme would have to be
> > > massive – sulphate particles or whitened clouds would have to deflect
> > > a lot of sunlight and ocean fertilization would have to cover great
> > > swathes of sea. Even the most careful computer models won’t be able to
> > > predict what will happen if an experiment is scaled-up and moved out
> > > of doors,” argues Bronson. “If governments believe there is a techno-
> > > fix to the climate change conundrum that will let them off the hook at
> > > the climate change treaty negotiations in Copenhagen, they will throw
> > > precious time and dollars at sci-fi fantasies, overlook potentially
> > > devastating side effects and divert their attention from the urgent
> > > need to reduce carbon emissions at source.”
>
> > > ETC Group’s new special report, “The Emperor’s New Climate:
> > > Geoengineering as 21st century fairytale,” questions the narratives
> > > commonly used by the geoengineering lobby to advance their agenda.
> > > “Contrary to what geoengineers are saying, this is a costly time-
> > > waster,” says Bronson. The report calls for a broader international
> > > discussion and concludes that “any effort to experiment these
> > > technologies in the real world is nothing short of geopiracy and
> > > should be banned.”
>
> > > ETC Group’s special report, “The Emperor’s New Climate: Geoengineering
> > > as 21st century fairytale,” is available on the Internet
>
> athttp://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=762
>
>
>
>
>
> > > -30-
>
> > > For more information:
>
> > > Diana Bronson (Montreal, Canada) [email protected]
> > > Phone: +1 514 273 6661; cell +1 514 629 9236
>
> > > Kathy Jo Wetter (Durham, NC, USA) [email protected]
> > > Phone: +1 919 688 7302
>
> > > Silvia Ribeiro (Mexico City) [email protected]
> > > Phone: 011 52 5555 6326 64
>
> > > Molly Kane (Ottawa, Canada) [email protected]
> > > Phone: +1 613 241 2267, ext 26; cell +1 613 797-6421
>
> > --
> > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> > Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
> >  Salter Satellite albedo demo preprint.doc
> > 3089KViewDownload
>
> --
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to