While I want to respect Ken's wishes to get back to his work, I have a few points to add.
First, I too do not like the tone of many of the comments on this list recently about Clive Hamilton and his position. They are unnecessarily dismissive and incorrectly (in my view) treat the issues Clive raises as though they were non-issues. One can disagree with his conclusions without attacking him for publishing his views. But I want to respond directly to Clive's description of Ken's role in the 2006 SRM meeting hosted at NASA Ames. I too attended this meeting and I think Clive's criticism of Ken for his choice of invitees and report co-authors is way off base. Clive takes Ken to task for having invited Haroon Kheshgi of ExxonMobil and Lee Lane, then with AEI, to the workshop and for involving Lee Lane as a co-author of the workshop report. I have not read Clive's book so I am reacting only to his email. I have spent a fair amount of my professional career fighting the positions of ExxonMobil and AEI but I think there is no basis for the innuendo that Clive draws from the fact that Ken involved Haroon and Lee in this workshop. There is a style of advocacy writing that uses the mere fact of a person's employer as an explanation for the findings of various reports. Sometimes there are sufficient associated facts to warrant the implication that the employer explains the position taken. But that is not the case here. Clive seems to have decided to claim that Ken is somehow in league with anti-GHG-mitigation agendas of ExxonMobil and AEI just because he included their employees in the workshop and worked with Lee as a report co-author. There is a much simpler, non-conspiratorial (and in my opinion, more truthful) explanation for Haroon and Lee's workshop involvement: they both possess intellectual skills and had some familiarity with the topic and Ken knew them. (As Haroon and Lee both know, I have had lots of occasion to disagree with positions they have espoused but there is nothing sinister or untoward in their participation in discussions like those at NASA Ames.) As to Clive's claim that the workshop report puts forth a "profoundly anti-democratic analysis," that is really a distortion of what the report says. The report described two competing strategic visions for SRM techniques. The first would do some research but put deployment on the shelf -- reserved for use akin to an emergency brake -- deployed only when a greater calamity was unavoidable. The second vision contemplated deployment of SRM in advance of calamitous change as a time-buying technique. The report's comment about the "political advantages" of the emergency-use vision was an observation that in an emergency, issues that might require some time to work through, tend to get ignored. I would agree that labeling this feature as a "political advantage" was a poor choice of words, since it can be misrepresented as an endorsement of that form of decision-making. But, if anything, the report's description of the pros and cons of the two strategic visions leans rather heavily in the direction of making the case against the emergency-use approach. I would be surprised if Clive actually believed the report was endorsing that approach and did so because it avoided democratic processes. Clive's highlighting this as the most disturbing aspect of the NASA workshop report comes across to me more as a "gotcha" quotation approach; rhetorically useful but not an accurate account. Personally, I share a lot of Clive's misgivings about how societies might misuse the prospect of geoengineering having some potential utility in fending off climate disaster but I don't see that advocating a ban on research is a wise approach to dealing with geoengineering's very real downsides. I respect Clive's right to hold and defend a different opinion but as someone who knows Ken pretty well, I think impugning his integrity or judgment as Clive seems to be doing is unsupportable. David Hawkins From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 11:48 AM To: Clive Hamilton Cc: Ross Salawitch; [email protected] Subject: [geo] Re: Reply to Ken Caldeira Clive Hamilton wrote "He [Gates] is an investor in Silver Lining, a company pursuing marine cloud brightening methods." This is false. Bill Gates made no such investment. I could be wrong, but I do not believe that there is any such company. There are some related facts (i.e., David Keith and I made a grant [i.e., gift] to Armond Neukermans to explore indoors the feasibility of making a nozzle, under the specific condition that the grantors and funders would have no financial interest in the outcomes of his work). Clearly, there was never any investment by Bill Gates in any company called Silver Lining. I leave it to Clive, the ethicist, to tell us what the right thing to do is when you make public, false, and damaging statements about someone else. ---- I do apologize to Clive (and others) for making statements that criticized them as persons. I should have restricted myself to criticizing statements, and not persons. I was wrong to make remarks that were critical of Clive (and others) as persons. I regret it, and I am sorry, and I will do my best to avoid such intemperate behavior in the future. --- I want to do my work and not waste any more time with this. Best, Ken _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers. http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html Check out the profile of me on NPR's All Things Considered<http://www.npr.org/2013/04/22/176344300/this-scientist-aims-high-to-save-the-worlds-coral-reefs> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Clive Hamilton <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I'm confused. In one post Ken Caldeira calls for respectful communication and in the next (see below) he attacks me sharply for "making things up". So let me respond. I should first confess that on occasion I make mistakes. When they are pointed out I correct them. My book, Earthmasters, was read thoroughly by several readers with various kinds of expertise, and revised several times to correct errors. Since publication a couple more have been pointed out by a diligent reader and will be corrected in the next printing by Yale University Press. But there is no need to make any corrections after Ken's criticisms of me on this site. My source for the claim about Bill Gates and Silver Lining was an article in The Times. There it was stated: "Silver Lining, a research body in San Francisco, has received $300,000 (£204,000) from Mr Gates." (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article2504715.ece) It's the reference I include for the claim in my book (page 220, note 15) As for the role of Haroon Kheshgi, he was a member of the workshop convened by NASA and the Carnegie Institution that led to a report in 2007 advocating research into SRM and essentially pushing geoengineering hard. Ken was the convener of that meeting. He thought it appropriate to invite a representative of Exxon Mobil and a representative from the American Enterprise Institute. The latter was Lee Lane. Lane is responsible for an "economic analysis" (published by the AEI) purporting to show that SRM would be a much cheaper way to deal with global warming than cutting greenhouse gas emissions and is to be preferred. Ken was happy to have Lane co-author the NASA report with him. The AEI later cut and pasted large chunks of the NASA report into one of its own reports. This is all documented in my book. Ken invited Kheshgi to the NASA meeting but says that the leader of Exxon's Global Climate Change programme had no influence over the proceedings or the report. Well (as one might say in the US) tell that to the marines. Ken can see no problem inviting onto a team to write a pro-geoengineering report a representative of the oil corporation that has done more than any other to attack climate science and resist all measures to curb carbon emissions. He also had no problem inviting a representative of the organization that has been the leading right-wing think tank attacking climate science for two decades. The AEI itself has received funding from Exxon Mobil to engage in climate science disinformation. One of its resident scholars infamously wrote to US climate scientists offering $10,000 in cash for any who agreed to write a critique of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (Hoggan, Climate Cover-Up, pp 73-4). Ken can see no problem working closely with these people on geoengineering. Nor can he see any problem with his public claim that all geoengineering research should be publicly funded (a claim he made at a public debate with me in Berkeley) while he himself accepts private funding (from Gates) and has privatized intellectual property by putting his name on geoengineering patents. Again, this is all documented in my book. What is most disturbing about the NASA report, co-authored by Ken from the meeting he organized, is its profoundly anti-democratic analysis. As I note in the book, Ken Caldeira and Lee Lane argue that in the "emergency" framing of geoengineering there is no point thinking about political objections and popular resistance to solar radiation management because, in a crisis, "ideological objections to solar radiation management may be swept aside". The authors count the ability to sweep aside civil society objections to deployment of solar radiation management as an "obvious political advantage". It is no surprise to me that the right-wing ideologues from the American Enterprise Institute should support the bypassing of democracy. That Ken, who frequently wheels out his credentials as an activist, should endorse such disdain for public participation in decisions determining the future of the planet comes as a shock. If Ken were to borrow a copy of my book he would learn a lot more about the politics of geoengineering, and perhaps even a bit about himself. As I compiled the index I noticed that his name features more than any other. I was surprised by this as my own assessment is that David Keith is a substantially more influential player. But David is more careful about how he goes about it. Clive Hamilton On 30 May 2013 12:18, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Ross, I agree with you about the need to focus on facts and ideas and not making snarky remarks about people. Unfortunately, Clive does himself and the broader discussion a disservice by promulgating an abundance of misinformation. Just grabbing the first thing I could find on the web, he claimed that Bill Gates is an investor in Silver Lining, which is patently untrue. Bill Gates has no investment in Silver Lining. In an earlier email, I noted Clive's propensity to make claims about people's motivations, when he is not in a position to discern their motivation. Clive also wrote "Through Kheshgi, Exxon has begun to influence "independent" reports into geoengineering, such as the 2007 NASA report on solar radiation management organised by Caldeira.". What is the evidence for Exxon's influence in this report? Is it just an assertion, or is there real evidence? I have little desire to get into a discussion fact-checking Clive's every statement, but at least a few of them appear to have little foundation. (Many of them have a ring of "truthiness", in that they are related to true statements. The problem is that they are not in themselves true statements.) We can have our own points of view, but we cannot invent our own facts. Best, Ken PS. An example of "truthiness" might be the assertion of Exxon influenced the 2007 meeting report (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070031204_2007030982.pdf).Haroon Kheshgi was at the meeting, but I do not recall any influence he had in producing the report. Perhaps Clive can enlighten us, and tell us more specifically how Kheshgi influenced this report. _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212<tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers. http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html Check out the profile of me on NPR's All Things Considered<http://www.npr.org/2013/04/22/176344300/this-scientist-aims-high-to-save-the-worlds-coral-reefs> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Ross Salawitch <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Disheartening to read criticism of Clive Hamilton, upon publication of his op-ed piece in the 26 May 2013 edition of the New York Times. Clive is eminently qualified to write on the topic of geo-engineering of climate, following the 22 April 2013 publication of his book "Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering": http://www.amazon.com/Earthmasters-The-Dawn-Climate-Engineering/dp/0300186673 This book is very well referenced with citations to enumerable papers written by those active in this group. Since when has an op-ed piece contained citations to the peer reviewed literature? (in case it is not obvious, this is a rhetorical question). Several prior commentors seem to have lost sight of the fact a NY Times op-ed piece is written for the public, rather than a highly specialized audience of academics. IMHO, Clive's piece is outstanding and he should be lauded for such a thorough, succinct summary of this important societal issue. This forum is maintained by Google groups. Presumably, anything written will be preserved for many generations to follow. At the moment, this forum is close to delving into a pit of snarkiness. I urge those who chose to write to consider the permanency of your remarks before hitting the "post" button. -- 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]<mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[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. -- Clive Hamilton Professor of Public Ethics Charles Sturt University www.clivehamilton.com<http://www.clivehamilton.com> -- 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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[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.
