John, We know how you feel but your repetitive assertions of scientific dishonesty are getting quite tiresome. David
----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> To: Geoengineering <[email protected]> Sent: Mon Dec 28 18:26:07 2009 Subject: [geo] Nathan's blunt honesty: emission cuts cannot cool Arctic and avoid tipping points We had blunt honesty from Nathan Myhrvold. But what about this? http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/research/41245 What do you think of this research, when the scientists are being plain dishonest, by suggesting that reducing emissions could cool the Arctic in time to save the Greenland ice sheet? To quote: "Irvine and his colleagues stress that reducing carbon dioxide emissions now is likely to be an easier and cheaper option [than SRM geoengineering]." Isn't honesty and truth important in science - and in getting appropriate solutions to problems? Cheers, John -- 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. -- 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.
