I think we need a bit more transparency and specificity in moderation criteria. Here is what I think they are based on observation. Andrew, please let me know if this is helpful.
Fred auto-approves: * cite to new research with abstract link and a couple of sentences of research * cite to old research with same so long as it is reasonably pertinent * substantive discussion by person who is expert on topic * substantive discussion on topic by people who are not experts but are engaging it seriously at some length (>= 3 sentences) auto-disapprove: * ad hominem comments * "denialist" views on role of CO2, reality of warming, etc. * personal dialog that is not relevant to 850 other people * one-liners, jokes, and flip remarks * self-serving commercial advertising fuzzy criteria that could be improved upon * "if you are going to post frequently you need to post more substance" * meta-tangents (e.g. recent discussion on nomenclature ... I wasn't sure that the excursion to "terraforming" was going to survive moderation, but it got interested responses from several experts, so I think it was worthwhile) * survey questions (I had one blocked asking "who's going to the Harvard summer session?" * "I"m getting sick of seeing your posts in my inbox" -- I'd prefer to see something more objective * personality-based as opposed to content-based moderation - "once the reins are on, they stay on" I've moderated large mailing lists so I know it can be very trying and I applaud Andrew for his hard work. --- 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 7:31 PM, Sam Carana <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > More than two years ago, I submitted a message that was blocked by Andrew. > FYI, I've added the original message below. > > My question is, how can we best prevent that potentially important > messages fail to reach group members? > > Cheers, > Sam Carana > > > ============ start message submitted April 2011 ============= > > [geo] How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate > risk? > > Given the scary situation in the Arctic, I would apportion parts of the > $10 million to methods that promise immediate results: > > 1. Testing of SRM such as sulfur aerosols, bright water and marine cloud > brightening. > > 2. Testing ways to ignite or break down methane from the sky, i.e. from > airplanes or satellites. Laser beams spring to mind. Short, amplified > pulses of light could be focused on hydrogen peroxide or ozone, in efforts > to produce hydroxyl and oxidize as much methane as possible. > > 3. Building on the outcome of 2., equipping small aircraft with such > technology, as well as autopilot software, GPS, LiPo batteries and with > solar thin film mounted both on top of and underneath the wings. One such > plane could in the first year navigate to the north of Canada and Alaska at > the start of summer. In subsequent years, numerous such planes could > follow, also going to other parts of the Arctic. At the end of summer, the > planes could return home for a check-up and possible upgrade of the > technology, to be launched again early summer the next year. There are many > self-financed clubs where members build and fly remote controlled aircraft. > Even a small financial incentive would give them a goal, while the > publicity would make people more aware of the problems we face in the > Arctic. > > Cheers! > Sam Carana > for background on above, also see: > http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2011/04/runaway-global-warming.html > > > >> From: Ken Caldeira [email protected]> > >> Reply-To: [email protected]> > >> > >> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:08:25 -0700 > >> To: Google Group [email protected]> > >> Subject: [geo] How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most > >> reduce climate risk? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Folks, > >> > >> There is some discussion in DC about making some small amount of public > >> funds available to support SRM and CDR research. > >> > >> In today's funding climate, it is much more likely that someone might be > >> given authority to re-allocate existing budgets than that they would > >> actually be given significantly more money for this effort. Thus, the > modest > >> scale. > >> > >> > >> If you were doing strategic planning for a US federal agency, and you > were > >> told that you had a budget of $10 million per year and that you should > >> maximize the amount of climate risk reduction obtainable with that $10 > >> million, what would you allocate it to and why? > >> > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Ken > >> > >> ___________________________________________________ > >> Ken Caldeira > >> > >> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > >> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > >> +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] > >> > >> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > ============ end message submitted April 2011 ============= > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
