Ken, I highly agree with your management philosophy on this issue. Any organized effort along these lines should be as passive as possible and not be a news maker but a respected news reporter. Also, any organization which takes on this role will be a focal point for fringe attacks and thus will need to be unflappable. Also, this type of effort would seem like a good starting point for an eventual formal Society for Geoengineering Studies. This initial website effort could end up eventually evolving into the On Line Journal of the Society for Geoengineering Studies.
I will continue to look for a current group which could fill this need. No luck so far. Michael On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@gmail.com> wrote: > Needless consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. > > It might be good if done well. > > I think key would be being as centrist and reasonable as possible. Make as > few claims as possible as an organization. Make sure all such statements of > the organization are well-founded and board approved. Avoid any statements > that would make the organization seem outside the scientific or political > mainstream. > > Balance this with rapid response to developments in the news cycle to > maximize media exposure. Participate in NGO activities around meetings of > the parties of various conventions. > > There are real political and strategic questions: is it better to promote > a broad brush approach to reducing climate risk (including emission > reduction, adaptation etc) or narrowly focus on CDR and/or SRM? > > (My preference would be the former.) > > Another question: is there a suitable existing org that would take this up > as a campaign? > > Ken Caldeira > kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu > +1 650 704 7212 > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab > > Sent from a limited-typing keyboard > > On Jun 19, 2011, at 1:47, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It doesn't need a lot of money to do do this. > > Some time ago I suggested a formal membership organisation, which would be > the obvious focus for media attention > > At the time ken argued against the idea, and it seemed to die at that > point. > > Is there now any support for establishing a "geoengineering studies society > " > > A > On 19 Jun 2011 00:57, "Michael Hayes" < <voglerl...@gmail.com> > voglerl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > -- *Michael Hayes* *360-708-4976* http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
