On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Eugene I. Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
> people who are bent on emission reductions as the solution, and who ignore > history. > Emission reductions will have to be part of the solution. Unless I missed something, I don't think anyone here is in the position to advocate that geoengineering *alone* will solve the problem. On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Eugene I. Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: > you ignore that fact that geoengineering very likely will be needed come > what may, > There's no denying this fact. > and reasonable funding will change the activity from discussion to active > research, which is sorely needed. > This is exactly what I said -- that this is a nascent field and research is much needed. > By knocking it down you [...] > I did not knock down the need for geoengineering. I knocked down the contention that we must promote geoengineering solutions. We're not at that stage. I'm all in favour of promoting the idea of research into geoengineering but not geoengineering solutions. Why can you not address the issue of need independent of a particular > technology. > > If you read my message again, I actually favored a geoengineering solution which naturally implies I'm not anti-geoengineering. > Or do you believe consensus, a la IPCC, substitutes for good science and > good contingency planning. > I have criticised IPCC's conservative approach for the past two years. Manu --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
