Just to provoke a little debate... Are there ANY scientists out there who think we should use geoengineering INSTEAD of emissions reduction? IE advocating BAU+GE ?
I suggest there are not, but I'd be interested to see if I'd get pilloried for speaking for the community. A On 24 March 2012 14:05, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]>wrote: > That's right, Stephen, you should learn from Jim's example: > > “Quite a few people fall into the category that I call ‘sincere but > deluded scientists’ — that is, they are pathologically enthusiastic about > their research, but not able to really rein in their enthusiasm,” Fleming > said. > http://thetartan.org/2011/10/17/scitech/fts > > See, when you call people 'sincere but deluded", you have to preface it > with "quite a few" and then don't name names. > > Perhaps you should amend your statement to read " "*Quite a few > people*working in geo-engineering hope it won't be needed - but we fear it > will > be," said Prof Salter. " and then everyone will be happy. > > > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 2:55 PM, James Fleming <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear Stephen, >> >> Since you persist, I have to request that in the future you please speak >> for yourself, not as a spokesman for any ersatz geoengineering community. >> Please note that I am not asking to be added to your list of exceptions, >> but *I am asking you refrain from such generalizations.* >> >> Jim Fleming >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Stephen Salter <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> The difference between my Commons statement and your position is too >>> subtle for me. Do you mean that you are not alarmed about the possibility >>> of the need for geoengineering becoming apparent? >>> >>> I could not possibly ask everybody because I do not have a complete >>> list. However in future I could if you wish say *' nearly everybody >>> except people like Alan Robock . . .' *Perhaps in return you could in >>> future distinguish the tropospheric salt and stratospheric sulphur SRM >>> techniques from one another. >>> >>> >> >> On 22/03/2012 21:14, Alan Robock wrote: >> Dear Steve, >> >> In the article about your parliamentary hearing, it says: >> >> *"Everybody working in geo-engineering hopes it won't be needed - but we >> fear it will be," said Prof Salter.* >> >> This is incorrect, and I would like to request that you issue a statement >> to that effect. You are not speaking for me. And you need to ask everyone >> else working in this field, before you claim to speak for them. I >> personally fear that geoengineering will be used before all the potential >> effects are studied. This is quite different from fearing that it will be >> needed, because that implies that we know that it will be the only response >> society can take. Thanks. >> >> -- >> James Fleming >> STS Program >> Colby College >> 5881 Mayflower Hill >> Waterville, ME 04901 >> Ph: 207-859-5881 >> Fax: 207-859-5846 >> Web: http://www.colby.edu/profile/jfleming<http://web.colby.edu/jfleming> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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. > -- 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.
