There is a lot of confusion about geoengineering its purpose and methods of achieving them. First of all many articles on physics and chemistry discuss experiments that are really modeling and computer simulations not real experiments. They use terminology's that tends to cause confusion between real experiments and virtual experiments. Sometimes a person that reads scientific abstracts is lead to believe that real experiments on nuclear fusion as an example have taken place when all that has been done are thought experiments with calculated values and computer modeling. Almost all geoengineering discussed here consorts not of real experiments but of virtual computer modeling. Maybe that's where Diana Bronson gets the idea that crackpot predictions are being used as smokescreens to justify arguments at the Copenhagen accord summit. These crack pot assumptions are causing confusion everywhere, in Copenhagen Denmark in Germany and in Amsterdam where dikes are already a centuries long reality they have contended with their whole lives. Don't ban us let us reason together behind closed doors and away from the crowds.
On Dec 20, 6:23 pm, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > I've re-posted Diana Bronson's blog here. I'd prefer she had posted it > herself, rather than waiting for us to stumble upon it. > > The most obvious problems with the arguments below are: > 1) The designed-to-offend description of 'crackpot profiteers'. As far as I > can tell, the vast majority of members on this list are modestly-remunerated > scientists and concerned citizens. I find that kind of language personally > offensive, pitifully childish and completely inappropriate to a debate with > honestly-acting citizens and qualified scientists. Had the post been placed > by Diana directly, I'd class it as an ad hominem attack. > 2) The suggestion that geoeng experiments should be banned - when there's no > stated reason that a national framework of legislation can't deal with > small-scale, localised experimentation > 3) A clear failure to recognise the demonstrated feasibility of SRM schemes > - describing them as hubris. > > Rajendra Pachauri <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_Pachauri> seems to > take the geoeng issue fairly seriously, and I'd suggest that ETC treat > pro-geoeng views with it, and its proponents, with a little more respect > than is suggested by the comments below. > > A > > So much has happened in the past three days it is has been impossible to > blog. We have been trying to lobby, trying to inform the press, attending > side events, organizing our own workshops, meeting old and new friends and > allies and basically working from early morning until late at night, like > virtually everyone else here. > > Today of course was a highlight -- the demonstration for action organized by > several hundred organizations from around the world. An estimated 80-100,000 > people in the streets -- very varied and colourful crowd, calling for > Climate Justice now! The march was so long it was impossible to walk from > one end to the other, let alone find someone you were looking for. We had > printed 5000 Stop Geoengineering stickers and I was able to distribute about > 4000 of them during the march. They look like this: > > But loads of people will blog about the demonstration -- and the arrests > that ensued which i did not see -- and no-one will talk about what is > happening in this meeting with regards to technology, so let me spend a bit > of time on what has been happening there. > > The Royal Society issued a report earlier this year on geonengineering which > really helped to bring this set of technologies out from the margins and > into the mainsteam of scientific and public policy debates on climate > change. ETC Group at the time issued two controversial sets of commentaries > on it, one before and one after. Neither was particularly appreciated by the > august institution, which opened its press conference with a denunciation of > our report laying out what we expected them to say. They were particularly > offended at our insinuation that that the report would legitimize > geoengineering research and end up making crackpot profiteers acceptable. Of > course, that is exactly what has happened. > > So here we are in Copenhagen and the Royal Society has teamed up with The > Climate Fund (directed By Margaret Leinen, better known for her association > with Climos, her son Dan Whaley's ocean fertilization firm), Jason > Blackstock doing double duty for CIGI and IIASA and lead author of one of > the most frightening geoengineering reports to date as well as the Stockholm > Environmental Institute and IISD to host a series of three side events on > different aspects of geoengineering. To my great surprise, I was invited to > speak at one of them, an invitation I gladly accepted. Then I found out I > only had 2 minutes to comment on the rather lengthy presentations by John > Shepherd (on the science) and Jason Blackstock (on the governance aspects). > The whole was chaired by the affable Oliver Morton who had praised the Royal > Society report when it came out and now writes for the Economist. Guess > that's the end of his byline! > > It ain't easy to do battle with these guys and and I was called simplistic > (publicly) and stupid (privately). I was however able to make my point that > no real-world geoengineering experiments should be allowed to go ahead, > especially not before some real international governance mechanisms were in > place. I tried to explain why geoengineering was a bad idea, why it was > sheer hubris to think we could actually "manage solar radiation" by putting > sulphates in the stratosphere or sunshades in space. Difficult as it was > though, I did appreciate the possibility of dialogue and frankly it was in > private conversations after the event that I felt the most hostility. People > in the audience seemed to share many of my concerns. > > The next day however we (Silvia Ribeiro from ETC Mexico and I) had planned a > workshop on geonegineering at the Klima Forum where the NGOs and the > activists gather every day. Lo and behold, the whole gang walked in -- > Shepherd, Leinen, Whaley, KPMG -- with their suitcases fully of glossy Royal > Society reports. That was rather astonishing since the day before I had been > told I could not distribute a two-page declaration that has been signed by > 180 organizations from around the world in their workshop! However, we let > them distribute it and a lively debate was had in a small jam-packed room of > people wanting information about what geoengineering was all about. I am > pretty sure it was the first time any of them had had such a close encounter > with civil society activist types and certainly Silvia gave them a piece of > her mind about how cloud whitening along the Pacific coast would be received > by the people of Ecuador, Peru and Chile! > > There is much much more to say -- most importantly perhaps was the G77 > Chair's meeting with civil society groups yesterday. He -- a very well > respected diplomat from Sudan Ambassador Lumumba -- who blasted the West and > those NGOs who are not strong enough to blast their governments -- now on > video. This is mostly about attempts inside the official process to kill the > Kyoto Protocol and seed divisions between developing countries which so far > has not been successful -- but that will have to be my next blog... -- 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.
