I do think it would be useful if there were a media savvy organization with a strong internationalist perspective that would in a responsible way advocate for the need to pursue a broad spectrum of approaches to reduce climate risk.
I listened to an interesting podcast on the history of blood transfusions. There was great opposition to this research in the 17th century, mostly by people claiming the moral high ground. Yet, scientists at that time thought that blood transfusions, while risky, would be a potential way of alleviating harm done by various diseases and maladies. This research was pursued and today we look at blood transfusion as a risky thing to do, but which can save lives in extreme circumstances. There are parallels between ETC and the people opposing the study of blood transfusion in the 17th century. http://www.virginiacampbellmd.com/blog/2011/4/27/exploring-17th-century-medicine-with-holly-tucker.html On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Michael Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Andrew, I think your proposed letter to the IPCC countering the ETC et.alia > "Open Letter" should be the main focus. However, I will start compiling a > contact info list of the "signers" if a direct response letter is to be > prepared. The points which Ken offers are a great rallying flag for anyone > interested in GE and Mike's "Engineering Geoengineering" is a clear and > practical road map for what is technically needed. Getting > that combined vision into the media, in the wake of the ETC offensive, can > be profoundly important at this time. > > I just Goggled the"Open Letter" and have found a small handful of other > groups posting copies of the letter. It does appear that the vast majority > of the signers have not bothered to reference the letter and so I have to > again ask myself; Is the list of groups simply window dressing? As you know, > the media has no recognized "GE Group" to seek out a balanced view from and > so your efforts are very important and timely. > > As to my bet offer, I would have lost as I can see about 5 organizations > (out of how many?) did mimic ETC's posting. I should have used the qualifier > of "vast majority" of the groups as opposed to the all inclusive phrasing > that I used. Still, the ETC effort does remind me of a Peacock.....all show, > little meat and lots of fertilizer. > > Thanks again for your patience, > > Michael > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/pCwJ4fDeT2QJ. > > 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.
