Posted at the request of John, as below. A ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "John Shepherd" <[email protected]> Date: 20 Aug 2014 13:35 Subject: Fwd: RS involvement in framework for GE research ? To: "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> Cc: "Steve Rayner" <[email protected]>, "Woods, Emma" < [email protected]>
Andrew You are correct in suspecting that the Royal Society had nothing to do with this. Please see message below… Please could you post a link to this, and if possible also re-title the thread so that any misunderstanding is minimised ? Meanwhile I am seeking to get a more accurate correction approved so that you can post that too… Best wishes John Begin forwarded message: *From: *"Woods, Emma" <[email protected]> *Subject: **RE: RS involvement in framework for GE research ?* *Date: *20 August 2014 11:01:28 BST *To: *John Shepherd <[email protected]>, Steve Rayner < [email protected]> *Cc: *Andy Parker <[email protected]> Hello again, Just to say that if you're not already aware, the article on motherboard.vice.com now contains the following (making an RS response even less likely): *Update: This article formerly stated that the Royal Society of London was behind the proposal; it is fact written by an affiliated scientist, but has not yet formally been endorsed or recognized by the organization. Motherboard regrets the error.* All the best, Emma -----Original Message----- From: Woods, Emma Sent: 20 August 2014 10:47 To: 'John Shepherd'; Steve Rayner Cc: Andy Parker Subject: RE: RS involvement in framework for GE research ? Thanks for flagging this up, John. I've passed it on to our Press Office, who will decide whether to issue a correction - I suspect not, but I'll keep you posted. Thanks again, Emma -----Original Message----- From: John Shepherd [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] Sent: 19 August 2014 19:16 To: Steve Rayner Cc: Woods, Emma; Andy Parker Subject: Re: RS involvement in framework for GE research ? Steve & Andy That’s what I thought: unfortunate…. I’ll leave it to Emma to decide whether a media correction is needed, but maybe one (or both) of you could post something on the Google group in response to Andrew Lockley’s posting ? John On 19 Aug 2014, at 16:39, Steve Rayner <[email protected]> wrote: > John > > This is an egregious misattribution. I think that the author confused > my membership of the RS Working Group with ³membership²of the RS > despite the fact that I specifically said that the 3 social scientists > on the WG were not FRSs > > Steve > > On 19/08/2014 15:43, "John Shepherd" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Emma >> >> I¹ve just picked up this report on the web >> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/geoengineering/XhxpmuYOmIo >> >> I don¹t know whether there was any RS involvement in this framework >> (nothing that I know of) but if it¹s a mis-attribution you may want >> to issue a clarificationŠ >> >> John > This email is sent on behalf of The Royal Society, 6-9 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5AG, United Kingdom. You should carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. The Royal Society accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may be caused by software viruses or interception or interruption of this email. The contents of this email and any attachments are intended for the confidential use of the named recipient(s) only. They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to or relied upon by any person without our express written consent. If you are not an addressee (or you have received this mail in error) please notify us immediately by email to: [email protected] Registered charity no. 207043 -- 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.
