Or could the SRM crowd offer some solutions? Drop the iron out of the sky (planes, rockets, balloons etc, launched from secure land sites? Simulate volcanic dust?) Monitor the results from satellite and by sensors mounted on commercial cargo ships normally traversing the patch. Perhaps more importantly, get involvement and buy-in from the science community, governments, and NGO's to conduct carefully controlled and monitored field studies, rather than launch rogue, pirate operations (at indigenous peoples' expense). May I also suggest that adding ground limestone rather than iron to the ocean (Harvey 2008) might be a safer, less biologically impactful and hence less controversial way to mitigate CO2, though I can't promise increased salmon returns (but neither can George). -Greg
________________________________ From: Fred Zimmerman <geoengineerin...@gmail.com> To: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> Cc: David Lewis <jrandomwin...@gmail.com>; Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu>; geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sat, April 27, 2013 12:11:50 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist 1) I generally agree with proposition that there is complacency about security. 2) I do not think it is a good idea to put heavy machine guns on research vessels. 3) I would extend the concern about security to information security. --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote: I have to say, I think those in this field are generally somewhat complacent about security. The animal rights movement shows what can happen. We shouldn't wait until after an attack to beef up security. Some of the larger conferences or specially convened meetings (eg Asilomar) may be a particularly appealing target for violent extremists. >In this specific case, my suggestion is that for all the bombast, George's >enemies are unlikely to ram his boat if it's firing warning shots at him. > >I've no particular love for Russ George methods, but killing his crew isn't >the >way to solve anything. >As a first step, it would seem reasonable to have SSOs (ship security >officers) >or weapons on board research vessels where it's legal. A heavy machine gun >costs >only a few thousand dollars. It's a sad state of affairs when scientists have >to >be armed, but better armed than dead. The threat level seems to suggest this >isn't an over reaction. >On Apr 27, 2013 6:16 AM, "David Lewis" <jrandomwin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >Paul Watson wrote a "commentary" on Russ George entitled "The Return of a >Dangerous Ecological Criminal" published by his Sea Shepherd Society online >October 29 2012. This Watson "commentary" seems to be all the Toronto Globe >and >Mail had as a source for Paul Watson's views on Russ George and geoengineering >as described in their Nov 7 2012 article (I cited previously). Watson, in >his >article, states his Sea Shepherd Society "did not make any judgement on the >scientific merits, if any, of this scheme [Russ George's 2007 plan to use >PLANKTOS to dump iron into waters west of the Galapagos Islands]". Watson, >apparently, was anxious that "Ecuadorian, American and International law" be >upheld. (This is what his article states). The Globe and Mail reporter >couldn't talk to Watson directly because "Mr Watson hasn't been seen in public >since July when he skipped bail in Germany..." >> >> >>As for ETC, their Geopiracy: The Case against Geoengineering webpage is still >>up. ETC concludes, obviously, that "A moratorium on real-world >>geoengineering >>experimentation is urgent", apparently because we don't know what will happen >>if >>the slightest thing is done that ETC classifies as geoengineering. From >>their >>first paragraph, ETC takes geoengineering to be atechnological strategy "that >>could reduce or delay climate change, at least until social forces make a >>practical agreement [to "mitigate climate chaos" by reducing GHG emissions]" >> >> >>Naturally,no one wants that. Reasonable people, obviously, would want >>toincrease or accelerate climate change, before social forces develop and >>make a >>practical agreement that might mitigate it.... ? >> >>From Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll: "I don't think they play at all >>fairly,' Alice began, in rather a complaining tone, 'and they all quarrel so >>dreadfully one can't hear oneself speak — and they don't seem to have any >>rules >>in particular; at least, if there are, nobody attends to them". >> >> >> >>On Friday, April 26, 2013 7:19:50 PM UTC-7, Ken Caldeira wrote: >>Does it matter to ETC or Paul Watson whether the intent is to increase >>fishery >>yields versus reduce the magnitude of climate change? >>> >>> >>>Would the action be 'geoengineering' in the latter case but not the former? >>> >>> >>>On Friday, April 26, 2013, David Lewis wrote: >>> >>>Paul Watson is known for going as far as attempting to sink ships in >>>international waters that he feels are in violation of his conservation >>>principles. >>> >>>> >>>> -- >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >"geoengineering" group. >To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >email >to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
