You can complain to the press.complaints commission in the UK. A On Oct 12, 2012 2:11 AM, "Ken Caldeira" <kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu> wrote:
> John Vidal is a serial offender. I attach communication that I had with > him and his editor in the past about his reckless, abusive, and damaging > tactics. > > The fact that the Guardian continues to publish such rubbish despite being > informed that their writer is a rubbish producer says something about a > lack of commitment to truth and accurately informing its readers, not to > mention a lack of respect towards people who in good faith and in an effort > to be helpful enter into public discussions. > > Did Guardian fact checkers contact me to see whether these attacks on me > were warranted? No, The Guardian did not. > > The Guardian should be ashamed of itself for repeatedly publishing crap > like this that recklessly damages reputations. > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> > Date: Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:14 PM > Subject: Fwd: comments on geoengineering story in Guardian > To: chris.elli...@guardian.co.uk > Cc: rea...@guardian.co.uk, John Vidal <john.vi...@guardian.co.uk> > > > Chris, > > Let's imagine a fable, set in the days before chemotherapy was recognized > as a sometimes useful tool in the treatment of cancer. > > Let's imagine that there are some medical scientists who get the idea that > ingesting a poison might in some specialized cases actually be a good idea. > > For people with invasive cancer, even though the poison would harm their > body, it would harm the cancer cells even more. While the idea of > self-administering poison is repugnant, there are cases where consuming > poison reduces overall harm. > > Now, let's imagine that some nutters get hold of this information, and > reason "well, if this poison has such positive benefits that it can tame > aggressive cancers, maybe we should start consuming a little poison now, > and prevent bad things from happening." They become "poison advocates". > Some of these poison advocates think we should put some poison, like > fluoride, in our drinking water now so that everyone can get this benefit > as soon as possible. (The medical scientists were not sophisticated in the > arts of public relations, so they called their idea "poison therapy".) > > Then, a reporter from the Guardian calls one of the scientists working on > "poison therapy". The scientist tells the reporter, "I am researching > whether there are certain circumstances in which ingesting poison can > reduce overall harm. But, one thing that commonly happens is that people > try to represent us as 'poison advocates' when we are really working > scientists trying to investigate something that might in some special > circumstances be able to reduce harm (and potentially save lives). Please > make sure you distinguish clearly between poison advocates and scientists > researching poison therapy. Oh, and by the way, here are links to two > interviews in which I have made my positions clear." > > Let's furthermore imagine that it is early days and the government is not > yet funding research into chemotherapy. So, a philanthropist steps in and > says "I will contribute to studying this and other innovative ways to > address threats posed by cancer, until the government can get its act > together and start supporting this research." > > Then, the Guardian reporter, in order to increase the titillation factor > of what he fears might be a rather mundane story, decides to blur the > distinction between advocating poisoning our water supply and researching > chemotherapy, and decides to publish an expose about how a billionaire > tycoon and his mad scientists are poison advocates, giving the impression > if not out-rightly saying that they seek to profit off of putting poison in > your drinking water. > > I think the above allegory reflects how I see the Guardian as handling > this matter. The Guardian, it seems, has chosen to titillate rather than to > inform. > > And in so doing, the Guardian does me and my colleagues personal harm. I > get phone calls or emails nearly every day from nutters who think that I am > spraying something in the sky. They have published my home address on the > web, much the way doctors who perform abortions here in the US have had > their home addresses posted on the web. The Guardian is inciting a bunch of > nuts who think the doctors studying chemotherapy need to be stopped before > they can poison us all. There is an issue of personal safety here. > > As I have said many times before, I don't know if this climate > chemotherapy can really reduce harm, but the stakes are high enough that we > would be remiss if we did not examine this possibility. > > It is completely irresponsible of the Guardian to conflate working > research scientists with the nutters advocating spraying aerosols in the > stratosphere. I would appreciate it if the Guardian could manage to be more > responsible in their reporting in the future. > > Best, > > Ken > > > > _______________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > *YouTube:* > Crop yields in a geoengineered > climate<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0LCXNoIu-c> > Influence of sea cucumbers on a coral reef CaCO3 > budget<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FSd4zy8iMo> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: John Vidal <john.vi...@guardian.co.uk> > Date: Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 7:50 AM > Subject: Re: comments on geoengineering story in Guardian > To: Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> > > > Dear Ken, > > thanks for the email. I promise I had no intention of misrepresenting you > but felt that the context of the statement about scientists "who advocate > geoengineering methods" (in the second paragraph) was that you and others > were seeking further experiments (as referred to in the first para) and > very much as as a last resort. > > However, could you please send Chris Elliott, the independent readers' > editor of the Guardian, a copy of your request directly please? He is > aware of your email to me and will adjudicate soonest. > > try: > > chris.elli...@guardian.co.uk > > but copy in: > > rea...@guardian.co.uk > > Thanks very much > > John Vidal > > > On 7 February 2012 05:08, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> > wrote: > >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/06/bill-gates-climate-scientists-geoengineering >> >> John, >> >> I appreciate that you published my comments about making CO2 emissions >> illegal and not wanting to profit off of patents, but I do not like being >> erroneously characterized as an advocate of geoengineering, when I am not. >> >> Will you next write that cancer researchers are in favor of cancer? Does >> wanting to research something mean you are an advocate of that thing? >> >> I think you should issue a correction saying that you were mistaken in >> referring to those who want to study geoengineering as "advocates of >> geoengineering". This is simply erroneous. >> >> --- >> >> In my email to you, I referred you to two interviews, available online: >> >> In one, I said: >> * >> Caldeira: First of all, as scientists, we are evaluating these approaches >> and trying to predict what might happen if they were deployed. We make a >> pretty clear distinction between research and development. But this >> distinction between researching something and advocating it is often lost. >> ... I think it is entirely likely that if we deploy one of these systems >> that bad stuff will start happening.* >> >> >> http://theeuropean-magazine.com/373-caldeira-ken/372-climate-change-and-geo-engineering >> >> In the other, I said: >> * >> I think just the political dimensions and the governance dimensions of >> these geoengineering options suggest that we would be very reluctant to >> deploy these things, even if we thought they worked more or less perfectly. >> >> ... Then, of course, the system is not going to work perfectly. First of >> all, it’s not going to address the issues of ocean acidification. It’s not >> going to perfectly offset global warming, so you’ll have some residual >> effects. So, I look at these geoengineering options as something we would >> only want to consider if our backs were really up against the wall, and >> where all these environmental and political risks seem worth taking because >> the alternatives look so frightening. >> >> ... I think we don’t know right now whether these kinds of approaches >> have the potential to reduce risk or not. In our climate models, the amount >> of climate change can be reduced by these kinds of approaches, but the >> climate models are an imperfect reflection of reality, and they don’t >> consider the kinds of political risks that I was mentioning before. And so >> I think we just have to say we don’t know whether these options can really >> reduce overall risk… >> >> Let’s say geoengineering doesn’t work, and that it would add to risk. It >> seems to me it would be worth having a research program to demonstrate that >> beyond a reasonable doubt so we can all forget about this and move on. >> >> On the other hand, if these options do have the potential to reduce >> risk, then it seems to me that we would like to have the option to reduce >> that risk should a time come where that would seem necessary. I kind of >> think of these geoengineering options as seeing, “Well, can we invent some >> kind of seatbelts for our climate system?” We need to drive the climate >> system carefully, we need to greatly reduce emissions. But even if we’re >> driving carefully we still run the risk of getting into an accident. And >> seatbelts can potentially reduce the damage when we’re in an accident. >> >> ... But thinking of geoengineering as a substitute for emissions >> reduction is analogous to saying, “Now that I’ve got the seatbelts on, I >> can just take my hands off the wheel and turn around and talk to people in >> the back seat.” It’s crazy.* >> >> http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2201 >> >> Would you, after reading those statements call me "an advocate of >> geoengineering" or would you call me "an advocate of geoengineering >> research"? >> >> --- >> >> There are a number of other errors and mis-impressions that I will not >> bother to correct here. But, overall, I got the sense that you were more >> eager to entertain than to accurately inform. Is this your sense also? >> >> Best, >> >> Ken >> >> _______________ >> Ken Caldeira >> >> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology >> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu >> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira >> >> *YouTube:* >> Crop yields in a geoengineered >> climate<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0LCXNoIu-c> >> Influence of sea cucumbers on a coral reef CaCO3 >> budget<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FSd4zy8iMo> >> > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Andrew Lockley > <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Posters note: The Guardian has forgotten to take its medicine again. >> Apparently David K, Ken C and John S are about to take over the world and >> get really rich. This sounds awesome fun and I'd love to join in. >> >> A >> >> >> http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/oct/06/us-push-geoengineering?cat=environment&type=article >> >> 12.10.12 >> >> Big names behind US push for geoengineering >> >> A coalition representing the most powerful academic, military, scientific >> and corporate interests has set its sights on vast potential profitsBritish >> scientists have pulled back from geoengineering projects but the US is >> forging ahead. Photograph: Gallo Images/Getty ImagesJohn VidalGuardian >> Weekly, Thu 6 Oct 2011 12.04 BSTBlogpostShare on twitterShare on >> facebookShare on emailMore Sharing Services0UK scientists last week >> "postponed"one of the world's first attempts to physically manipulate the >> upper atmosphere to cool the planet. Okay, so the Stratospheric Particle >> Injection for Climate Engineering project wasn't actually going to spray >> thousands of tonnes of reflective particles into the air to replicate a >> volcano, but the plan to send a balloon with a hose attached 1km into the >> sky above Norfolk was an important step towards the ultimate techno-fix for >> climate change.The reason the British scientists gave for pulling back was >> that more time was needed for consultation. In retrospect, it seems bizarre >> that they had only talked to a few members of the public. It was only when >> 60 global groups wrote to the UK governmentand the resarch groups behind >> the project requesting cancellation that they paid any attention to >> critics.Over the Atlantic, though, the geoengineers are more gung-ho. Just >> days after the British got cold feet, the Washington-based thinktank >> the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC)published a major report calling for the >> United States and other likeminded countries to move towards large-scale >> climate change experimentation. Trying to rebrand geoengineering as >> "climate remediation", the BPC report is full of precautionary rhetoric, >> but its bottom line is that there should be presidential leadership for the >> nascent technologies, a "coalition of willing" countries to experiment >> together, large-scale testing and big government funding.So what is the BPC >> and should we take this non-profit group seriously? For a start these guys >> - and they are indeed mostly men - are not bipartisan in any sense that the >> British would understand. The operation is part-funded by big oil, >> pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and while it claims to >> "represent a consensus among what have historically been divergent >> views," it appears to actually represent the most powerful US academic, >> military, scientific and corporate interests. It lobbies for free trade, US >> military supremacy and corporate power and was described recently as a >> "collection of neo-conservatives, hawks, and neoliberal interventionists >> who want to make war on Iran".Their specially convened taskforce is, in >> fact, the cream of the emerging science and military-led geoengineering >> lobby with a few neutrals chucked in to give it an air of political >> sobriety. It includes former ambassadors, an assistant secretary of state, >> academics, and a chief US climate negotiator.Notable among the group is >> David Whelan, a man who spent years in the US defence department working on >> the stealth bomber and nuclear weapons and who now leads a group of people >> as Boeing's chief scientist working on "ways to find new solutions to >> world's most challenging problems".There are signs of cross US-UK >> pollination – one member of the taskforce is John Shepherd, who recently >> wrote for the Guardian: "I've concluded that geoengineering research – and >> I emphasise the term research – is, sadly, necessary." But he cautioned: >> "what we really need is more and better information. The only way to get >> that information is through appropriate research."It also includes several >> of geoengineering's most powerful academic cheerleaders. Atmosphere >> scientist Ken Caldeira, from Stanford University, used to work at the >> National laboratory at Livermore with the people who developed the >> ill-fated "star wars" weapons. Together with David Keith, a researcher at >> the University of Calgary in Canada, who is also on the BPC panel, Caldeira >> manages billionaire Bill Gates's geoengineering research budget. Both >> scientists have patents pending on geoengineering processes and both were >> members of of the UK Royal Society's working group on geoengineering which >> in 2009 recommended more research. Meanwhile, Keith has a company >> developing a machine to suck CO2 out of the year and Caldeira has patented >> ideas to stop hurricanes forming.In sum, this coalition of US expertise is >> a group of people which smell vast potential future profits for their >> institutions and companies in geo-engineering.Watch out. This could be the >> start of the next climate wars. >> > > -- 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.
