To Andrew, anyone not going to the link will not see the name of the person apologizing here, Doug Craig.
On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 5:32:02 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: > > Poster's note : despite the apologies to Lee, geoengineering does seem to > offer a way for deniers to get out of their intellectual dead end. Please > excuse lack of paragraphs. I'm ill, and line breaks are not high on my list > of priorities! > > http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2013/06/apologizing-to.html > > Apologizing to Lee Lane > > June 3, 2013 10:22 PM > > I stand corrected.On May 20, 2013, I posted the second blog in a series > with the following title: "The conservative flip-flop on climate change > (2)."In that blog I wrote, "While the Hudson Institute regularly publishes > articles denying that global warming is real or human-caused, many of those > pieces are written by Lee Lane, a resident fellow at AEI and codirector of > the AEI Geoengineering Project, who has advocated researching the use of > climate engineering (CE) technologies like solar radiation management > (SRM)."I wrote, "Lane was the lead author of a paper that offered, 'a > preliminary and exploratory assessment of the potential benefits and costs > of climate engineering (CE). We examine two families of CE technologies, > solar radiation management (SRM) and air capture (AC), under three > emissions control environments: no controls, optimal abatement, and > limiting temperature change to 2°C.'"I continued to quote Mr. Lane: "Our > analysis suggests that, today, SRM offers larger net benefits than AC, but > that both deserve to be investigated further. In the case of SRM, we > investigate three specific technologies: the injection of aerosols into the > stratosphere, the increase of marine cloud albedo, and the deployment of a > space-based sunshade."We estimate direct benefit-cost (B/C) ratios of > around 25 to 1 for aerosols and around 5000 to 1 for cloud albedo > enhancement."And then I wrote this:"In other words, conservatives insist > that global warming is not real or human-caused if the solution is carbon > taxes or government regulation. However, if the solution is the highly > profitable business of geoengineering, they not only believe global warming > is real and human-caused, they think we need to get cracking on saving > ourselves from it."In response, Mr. Lane wrote me today, adamantly > insisting that I have done him a disservice and that I have not fairly or > accurately characterized his views. And he is correct.Lane writes that I > made "blatantly false and misleading statements about my writings on > climate change. You state, 'While the Hudson Institute regularly publishes > articles denying that global warming is real or human-caused, many of those > pieces are written by Lee Lane, ... who has advocated researching the use > of climate engineering (CE) technologies like solar radiation management > (SRM).'"Mr. Lane writes, "In fact, I have never claimed that global warming > is not real nor have I ever asserted that humans have not contributed to > it. My monograph posted on the Hudson Institute website here places the > anthropogenic origins of climate change in a historical context. It also > explains why it is extremely unlikely that effective greenhouse gas > controls will be deployed on a sufficient scale to avoid climate change > damage in the more vulnerable societies, which is the source of my interest > in SRM."My monograph on climate engineering is easily accessible here. I > challenge you to find any claim in it that disputes either the reality or > the anthropogenic roots of climate change."Or, if you only read shorter > pieces, you might consult the piece listed here."I excerpt: 'Many > Republicans will doubtless again respond by challenging the science that > shows that greenhouse gas emissions could cause harmful climate change. > Were such challenges directed at poking holes in the often hyped claims of > green advocates, they would serve the public interest.'"But Senator James > Inhofe and many other Republicans go much farther, claiming that manmade > climate change is a huge scientific hoax and that greenhouse gas emissions > pose no risk.'"'Hoax, really? Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish Nobel laureate > chemist, first described the greenhouse effect in 1896. Science, then, has > long known that carbon dioxide and some other naturally occurring gases in > the atmosphere cause Earth to be about 30 degrees C warmer than it > otherwise would be.'"'Mankind, by burning fossil fuels and cutting down > forests, is adding to the atmosphere's stock of warming gases. If that > process continues, all else being equal, simple logic tells us that the > planet will warm further. Warming is highly likely to affect rainfall, > clouds, ice cover, and much else.'""Not only is your description of my > views are grossly misleading, but had you taken even the most rudimentary > care to check their accuracy would have clear evidence refuting them. Stop > telling lies about my writings." > Lee Lane > Visiting Fellow > Hudson Institute > > Mr. Lane is right. I was wrong. And I apologize for not presenting his > views on anthropogenic climate change correctly. I am happy to publish this > correction > -- 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.
