This comes down to a question of whether you trust "the system" and it is very true that many (most?) people do not. That is why I am pushing people to take advantage of the enormous forward steps in transparency that have occurred in the Internet era. It's a paradoxical world we live in where what David Brin calls sousveillance (from below) is more effective than ever yet the Panopticon surveillance state is also more dangerous and powerful than ever. If the geoengineering enterprise is to succeed geoengineers must, I think, err on the side of making a radical commitment to transparency. In my view transparency must go much further than debating and issuing fuzzy governance standards. We need to think about it as a globally crowd-sourced project on the scale of the Internet.
To continue the marital metaphor -- after my wife and I were married for a few years//// decades, we invented "I take over your idea" as short-hand for "not only do I agree with your criticism, but I am even more enthusiastic and committed to your clever new proposal than you are." We need to tell the Clive Hamiltons of the world that "we take over your idea"*: we are committed to transparency and accountability in a pragmatic measureable and visible way, and we need to start building that into our activities without waiting for a decadal governance debate to commence (let alone conclude). * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Jim Lee <rez...@gmail.com> wrote: > As funny as that analogy was, what's the likelihood your wife is going to > kill you? > [1<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/ipdLpbnXHeU/tAXDtadrNR0J> > ] > If you came up with a wife mitigation system, would this decrease the > likelihood she would still attempt to kill you? > If you gently push your wife toward the door, are we assured she we leave? > > I believe volcanoes do a fine job cooling the planet, and when a big one > decides to explode after a couple of years of SRM, in at least some small > way, geoengineers share blame for the resulting loss of life. > [2<http://books.google.com/books?id=A8rfnrPw69YC&lpg=PA192&ots=kRI9VjpPrT&dq=almanac%20ash%20and%20you%20shall%20receive&pg=PA192#v=onepage&q=almanac%20ash%20and%20you%20shall%20receive&f=false> > ] > Then again, this goes back to personal responsibility. > > Ken Caldeira will never actually fly in a plane and spray glass > microspheres filled with sulfuric acid, and John Latham will never hold a > "controller" for his Silver Lining boats, therefore they are detached from > the long-term consequences. In the end, "the system" will determine where > "targeted modulation" needs to occur. As there are few systems that remain > corruption free (if any) I foresee no scenario where any man should be > trusted with the ability to control the weather. > > The military wants what your community is selling, like it or not. > Interactive weather control timeline: > http://terraforminginc.com/weather-control/index.html > > > I'm sure you all have the best intentions, I however have no faith in > those who will assume control of your machinations. > > ~ Jim Lee > ClimateViewer 3D > http://climateviewer.com/ > > > > > > On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:15:32 AM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote: > >> Jim, >> >> Every decision is made under conditions of uncertainty. >> >> It is all about risk management. Different course of action are >> evaluated using the best available information, as we work to deepen our >> knowledge and understanding. This lack of certainty and paucity of >> information is why I and many others advocate research. >> >> If I had to wait until I fully understood my wife before I married her, I >> would still be a single man. >> >> Best, >> >> Ken >> >> PS. And by the way, we do know who is currently modifying the system: It >> is primarily you and I and others like us, with our consumption of energy >> that drives greenhouse gas emissions, aerosol emissions, and land-use >> change (see attachment). >> >> >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Jim Lee <rez...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Would this be similar to your modeling a "geoengineered world" and >>> claiming the models show it's safe, when you have no clue who is currently >>> modifying the system? Without a full accounting of weather manipulation >>> efforts worldwide, and an understanding of how those are currently >>> affecting our climate, how can you claim your model has any validity? >>> >>> ~ Jim Lee >>> http://terraforminginc.com/ >>> >>> >>> On Monday, May 27, 2013 5:30:50 PM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> My bigger concern is that some people have a tendency to *make up >>>> facts when the available supply is insufficient to their needs*. >>>> >>>> >> -- 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.
