I collect google alerts on a range of geoengineering-related terms. As such, I can make a fairly objective assessment of the penetration of papers in to the general media. The exception to this is any papers which don't contain any of the standard geoengineering nomenclature.
If it's of any particular importance, I can trawl through all the data, and provide a URL count for each of these papers, and for some other control papers for comparison. But hopefully you'll take my word for it... A On 5 September 2012 18:10, David Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: > Is the source for the assessment that these two papers attracted a lot of > attention outside the specialist scientific community you, or someone other > than you? > > -- > 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/-/ha2nb-NP0OwJ. > 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. -- twitter @andrewjlockley 07813979322 andrewlockley.com skype: andrewjlockley -- 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.
