There is an old saying that takes the form, "don't invite the fox into
the henhouse." As an independent reader it seems to me that this is just
what Clive Hamilton is saying. He has a point of view. It ought to be
respected but we must go on discussing the prospects and need for
geoengineering and watch the fox. You ought to know that the US has
spent $400 billion on cancer research during the last 40 years and still
there is no cure for cancer, only mitigation. This year $20 billion is
being spent in the US. It seems to me that global warming could be a
worse prospect for the world than the continuing scourge of cancer and
we ought to be spending for research on possible cures like a drunken
sailor.
My instinct is that the warming is a result of a warm spell that will
end in time but I respect the opinion of those who believe it is
atmospheric CO2. We ought to do the research because we really don't
know, and we need to be ready.
-gene
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Clive Hamilton" <[email protected]>
*To: *"Dave Hawkins" <[email protected]>
*Cc: *[email protected], "Ross Salawitch" <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
*Sent: *Saturday, June 1, 2013 2:23:57 AM
*Subject: *Re: [geo] Re: Reply to Ken Caldeira
Dear David
Thanks for your response to my post; it provides a helpful perspective
on the NASA-Ames meeting and subsequent report. However, I think you
have misunderstood the point I was making. I am not suggesting that Ken
is or was "somehow in league with" ExxonMobil and the AEI. I was making
two points.
First, I was pointing to the ethical problem of inviting representatives
from the two organizations in the United States perhaps most responsible
for propagating climate science denial and undermining efforts to curb
greenhouse gas emissions. It is not much of an exaggeration to say that
the NASA meeting was convened /because /ExxonMobil and the AEI have been
so successful in their political ambitions. To invite representatives of
the organisations that did so much to wreck Plan A to a meeting to help
formulate Plan B was, in my view, immoral.
Secondly, there is the practical question of 'moral hazard'. ExxonMobil
and the AEI both have an interest in promoting geoengineering as a
substitute for mitigation, one commercial, one political and
ideological. They are in no sense independent. Allowing representatives
of those organisations to influence the assessment of geoengineering is
likely to distort any analysis in favour of geoengineering over
mitigation. Lee Lane's paper purporting to show that sulphate aerosol
spraying is the cheapest and best response to global warming is a
travesty by any measure, and it is not surprising that it was published
and heavily promoted by Bjorn Lomborg.
So my critique is aimed at the political naivety of many scientists
engaged in geoengineering research and advocacy, including Ken. They do
not see how their activities play into the hands of forces that do not
share their admirable desire to protect the world from the ravages of
climate change. And I must say, David, that your argument that Lane and
Kheshgi were invited for their intellectual skills is another instance
of this naivety. ExxonMobil and the AEI are hard-ball political players.
Lane and Kheshgi are hired for their intellectual skills, skills that
they are paid to deploy to their employers' benefit. That is how the
world works. To imagine that they can somehow be purified, and become
independent intellectuals as they walk into a meeting with well-meaning
scientists, is ... well, I don't want to be rude, but I hope you see
what I mean.
The political dangers of the scientific push for geoengineering research
is one of the principal themes of my book, /Earthmasters,/ and there is
a great deal more in it on these questions.
On the question of the anti-democratic sentiments of the NASA group's
report, I read the report very carefully and, in the context of the
report overall and the composition of the group, I think my
interpretation is a reasonable one. I invite others to read the NASA
report and perhaps to peruse the more extensive analysis in my book.
Put it this way; if I had been a member of that group and we wanted to
write that in an emergency “ideological objections to solar radiation
management may be swept aside” and that this is an “obvious political
advantage”, all sorts of alarm bells would have gone off. But it appears
that in the group none did.
Yes, the report does come down more in favour of the "buying time"
argument than the "emergency" framing, but it does so because the
authors calculated that governments would be scared off by the emergency
framing and would be less likely to fund research into geoengineering.
I hope this makes my arguments clearer.
Clive
On 31 May 2013 02:53, Hawkins, Dave <[email protected]
<mailto:[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]>
[mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* [geo] Re: Reply to Ken Caldeira____
__ __
Clive Hamilton wrote____
__ __
"He [Gates] is an investor in SilverLining, a company pursuing
marine cloud brightening methods."____
__ __
This is false. BillGates 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 <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 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.
____
--
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].
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.
