As far as I am concerned all IPCC plenaries should be in open session, and I have made this point on a number of occasions. The IPCC seems to feel differently, but there are enough people who agree and are inside the meetiongs that a pretty good account of what went on would probably be possible, if any news gatherers cared. Mostly, they/we dont
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]> wrote: > Oliver etal > > 1. I support everything you say below. > > 2. I learned a bit about Bolin at > http://www.bolin.su.se/index.php/about-bert-bolin . Thanks for using his > name. > > 3. The current issue is how much of the week of political discussions > should be in “Executive Session” (not to be reported)? Is there a place to > view the rules? I believe most corporate boards would say that the meetings > need to be closed and minutes can be pretty skimpy. But most public elected > or appointed boards have strict rules on closure (personnel topics can > exclude reporters but not much else). I presume the latter model for the > IPCC? How do we learn how the consensus discussions took place? Or should > we not - so that something/anything can emerge? > > Ron > > > On Apr 24, 2014, at 5:21 AM, O Morton <[email protected]> wrote: > > I kind of object to the idea that the SPM process constitutes "tampering by > politicians". First: it's the process, an intergovernmental process, that > gives the IPCC heft. It was baked into the design by Bert Bolin in order to > create a document that would fulfill politcal functions. If you don't want a > consensus document with heft that's fine. But if you do want one, you have > to explain how that could be achieved without having governments in the > process. Second: it sort of assumes that only the politicians bring the > politics. there's politics throughout the process of various sorts. The > politicians' are more overt. But they also remove politics (cf the removal > of preliminary matter in WGIII about ethics) > > best, o > > On Thursday, 24 April 2014 07:25:10 UTC+1, kcaldeira wrote: >> >> These figures should appear in the underlying chapters, which, unlike the >> Summary for Policy Makers, is not tampered with by politicians. >> >> The underlying chapters can be found here: >> https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/ >> >> It would be interesting to do a comparison of the initial draft of the SPM >> and the draft as finally approved by governments, with some documentation >> for who objected to what and why. >> >> >> _______________ >> Ken Caldeira >> >> Carnegie Institution for Science >> Dept of Global Ecology >> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >> +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] >> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab >> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira >> >> Assistant: Dawn Ross <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Ken, Alan, List: >>> >>> Thanks for the lead on the “Science” story. I learned a little more. >>> >>> Apparently the week’s political negotiations resulted in the deletion of >>> five figures and considerable text. It sure would be interesting to have a >>> separate “pirate” publication that only showed these deletions. Even better >>> would be an added guide to which countries were most responsible for these >>> changes. Anyone already done this? >>> >>> Ron >>> >>> >>> On Apr 23, 2014, at 3:04 AM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> As far as I can tell, Hamilton provides no citation in this work to >>> support the following assertion, other than his own book: >>> >>> Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a >>> substitute for emissions reductions. >>> >>> I further note the incongruity of reading a section titled "A world >>> controlled by scientists" the same day that Science magazine publishes an >>> article about how the politicians ignore the recommendations of scientists >>> when it comes to climate change: >>> >>> >>> http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/04/scientists-licking-wounds-after-contentious-climate-report-negotiations >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________ >>> Ken Caldeira >>> >>> Carnegie Institution for Science >>> Dept of Global Ecology >>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >>> +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] >>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab >>> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira >>> >>> Assistant: Dawn Ross <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Alan Robock <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Geoengineering and the politics of science, by Clive Hamilton >>>> Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 16, 2014, doi: >>>> 10.1177/0096340214531173 >>>> >>>> >>>> http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/15/0096340214531173.abstract.html >>>> >>>> The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change >>>> (IPCC) include an assessment of geoengineering—methods for removing carbon >>>> dioxide from the atmosphere, or cooling the Earth by reflecting more of the >>>> sun’s radiation back into space. The IPCC assessment signals the arrival of >>>> geoengineering into the mainstream of climate science, and may normalize >>>> climate engineering as a policy response to global warming. Already, >>>> conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute >>>> for emissions reductions. Climate scientists are sharply divided over >>>> geoengineering, in much the same way that Manhattan Project scientists were >>>> divided over nuclear weapons after World War II. Testing a geoengineering >>>> scheme, such as sulfate aerosol spraying, is inherently difficult. >>>> Deployment would make political decision makers highly dependent on a >>>> technocratic elite. In a geoengineered world, experts would control the >>>> conditions of daily life, and it is unlikely that such a regime would be a >>>> just one. A disproportionate number of scientists currently working on >>>> geoengineering have either worked at, or collaborated with, the Lawrence >>>> Livermore National Laboratory. The history of US nuclear weapons >>>> laboratories during the Cold War reveals a belief in humankind’s right to >>>> exercise total mastery over nature. With geoengineering, this kind of >>>> thinking is staging a powerful comeback in the face of climate crisis. >>>> ---- >>>> Hamilton correctly explains my arguments against a gradual ramp up of >>>> geoengineering as proposed by David Keith, and the lack of a rebuttal in >>>> Keith's book. >>>> >>>> But I just want to point out that even though I had a summer job at >>>> Livermore when I was a grad student 41 years ago, and have collaborated >>>> with >>>> climate scientists there since then on nuclear winter and geoengineering, I >>>> am not evil and determined to control the world with geoengineering. >>>> >>>> Alan >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor >>>> Editor, Reviews of Geophysics >>>> Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program >>>> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 >>>> Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 >>>> 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected] >>>> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock >>>> http://twitter.com/AlanRobock >>>> Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54 >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O Oliver Morton Editor, Briefings The Economist O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
