Stephen, Perhaps you could add a disclaimer to any such contributions, along the following lines:
"While efforts have been taken to make this contribution reflect current insights into the technology at the time of writing, development and deployment of such technologies and their effect and impact is a work of progress. Reader should check for updates and changes to the proposals described in this publication, which shouldn't be seen in isolation, but instead be regarded as part of ongoing research, discussions, testing and further work that remains to be done." Cheers! Sam Carana On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Alvia Gaskill <[email protected]> wrote: > "geoengineering has given rise to heated disputes, even death threats" > > Death threats? I'm certain we all have in mind one or more people we would > like to see "go away," but I am not aware of any specific cases of death > threats being made against those involved in geoengineering. It is true > that there are a lot of people running around loose who shouldn't be, but I > doubt even any of them have a geoengineer fixation of that magnitude. That > no one or group tried to bust up the Asilomar meeting (where you could have > taken out most of the people working in the field) suggests a low threat > level. Ken and ETC trashed it and blew it off, but that's a different > thing. > > The psycho with the propane cans who took hostages and tried to blow up the > Discovery Channel building over his belief about their lack of emphasis on > overpopulation probably represents the most likely case to occur. Groups > like ETC, the chemtrail nut jobs, etc. are largely in it for publicity or > money and aren't going to hurt anybody. > > Michael Mann claimed some time ago that white supremacists were after him > and other climate scientists because they were Jews, but I'm not sure that > ever amounted to anything. I think Mann and the others were more likely > hiding out from the media because they didn't want to answer questions about > the climategate fiasco than out of legitimate fear of being killed. Still, > the world is full of unstable people, so you probably shouldn't answer the > door unless you know who it is and don't open any FedEx packages that look > like they were prepared by Ted Kaczynski. > > As to your concerns about liability for what you write, the publishers are > correct. These are standard waivers, that along with that for copyright > that authors have to agree to. Publishers, not authors set the terms and no > one is making you submit anything to this company. As their representative > alluded, the greater challenge will be in getting anyone to read the 20,000+ > words you have written about your theoretical technology than will come > after you for fear of its ultimate impact. > > Perhaps the gold standard for "we shouldn't have published this guy's work" > is the Andrew Wakefield paper in the Lancet about the connection he drew > between mercury in vaccines and autism. The research was later judged to be > a fraud, he had his medical license revoked, the journal had to retract the > paper (more than 10 years after the fact), and several children died because > their parents believed this bozo's claim and didn't have their children > vaccinated. I'm sure the Lancet had the same kind of liability waiver > language in their author's release form and Wakefield and his co-authors > (who have curiously gone unpunished for their role) have not been sued for > any of this to my knowledge nor has the Lancet. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield > > If you look closely enough at any contract whether it's for a blender you > bought at WalMart, for lab testing services or supplies or medicine or > practically anything else you will find some kind of liability waiver that > you implicity or explicitly have to agree to. This doesn't preclude legal > action down the road (the phone book is still full of lawyers), but we also > have courts that keep them at bay also. > > Will anyone be sued for field tests of geoenginnering? You can count on > it. Will anyone be sued for what they write about geoengineering? Not > unless they "do a Wakefield." > > ________________________________ > > From: Stephen Salter [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Mon 5/2/2011 11:44 > To: Sustainability, Encyclopedia REO > Subject: Re: Robert Meyers (ed.) Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and > Technology (Springer, 2011) | Invitation to Contribute > > Dear Dr Meyers > > Following comments from Tim Lenton I have modified and uploaded my > contribution to your encyclopaedia. However I have now read the publishing > agreement as carefully as I should have done earlier and noticed that in the > final paragraph of clause 6 that you want unlimited indemnity for all legal > costs that might arise. > > The probability of litigation is low but geoengineering has given rise to > heated disputes, even death threats, and the probability of vexatious > litigation is not as low as for general material. I am not willing to take > an infinitely large risk. I hope that it will be possible for you to modify > the clause. > > Stephen Salter > -- 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.
