To: Google Geo Group Clive Hamilton refers to me a couple of times in his latest attack on Ken Caldeira. His reasoning seems to be that I worked for AEI; therefore, I must be a right-wing ideologue. Caldeira, then, should not have invited me to take part in the NASA workshop. A couple of things are wrong with this syllogism.
First, Hamilton, who claims to be a meticulous fact checker, seems not to have bothered to learn a number of things that he could have found out from the open paper trail or by the simple expedient of asking me. For instance, in 2006, when Caldeira invited me to write the workshop report, I had not yet joined AEI. In fact, at that time, I was the executive director of the Climate Policy Center (CPC). CPC was a centrist and bipartisan think tank seeking solutions to climate change. The Chairman of CPC’s board of directors was a former sub- cabinet level official in the Clinton Administration State Department. Another of the board members had held a similar post in the Clinton DOE. My association with these people is clearly a blight on my credentials as a right-wing ideologue, but I disclose it here it in order to spare Ken blame for insufficient dogmatism. While still at CPC, I wrote a book (published in October 2006 by AEI Press) that called for research into SRM. It also urged the Bush administration to endorse the concept of a harmonized carbon tax and a vigorous energy R&D program aimed a devising low carbon energy sources. In early 2008, the then President of AEI, Chris DeMuth, who obviously knew my views, hired me to co-direct the brand new AEI Geo- Engineering project. In fact, like my current base, the Hudson Institute, AEI takes no positions as an organization. Hamilton goes on to quote a passage from the NASA report that, he claims, implies that Caldeira and I, “support the bypassing of democracy.” This claim is preposterous. The subsection from which the quotation is taken is clearly intended to discuss options for a future research agenda, which was the workshop’s purpose. The full passage for which Hamilton quotes states: "The two rival policy visions described in the preceding section pose rather different policy choices, and they may imply somewhat different research priorities. The parachute strategy has both advantages and disadvantages. "If solar radiation management were to be deployed only in case of a clear climate emergency, there would be relatively little practical value in research about current political objections and resistance to solar radiation management. (In a crisis, ideological objections to solar radiation management may be swept aside.) Also, comparisons between the costs and benefits of solar radiation management versus emissions reduction would be irrelevant. If it were assumed that the potential crisis lies far in the future, the relevance of ozone depletion would be slight." The report, therefore, merely notes (correctly) that in crises, dissent is often overborne. The passage makes no value judgments whatever other than a hypothetical about how the value of current research may vary with one’s expectation about future climate scenarios. It is true that I am concerned about preserving the institutions of a market economy, limited government, and the application of science to the goal of economic production. I am also quite chary about sacrificing any of that legacy on the basis of somebody’s vision of supposedly benign social engineering. If that, in Hamilton's eyes, makes me a right-wing ideologue, I accept the label happily. Lee Lane Visiting Fellow Hudson Institute Washington, DC On May 30, 12:53 pm, "Hawkins, Dave" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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-s...> > > 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 ... > > read more » -- 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.
