I've been taking this MOOC in bullshit, from the University of Washington

Simply put, bullshit is variously defined as (paraphrased)
- Arguing persuasively, with total ignorance of (or indifference to)
factual accuracy
- Deliberately misleading (mis)use of facts and data

I'm planning a paper on "Bullshit in geoengineering discourse".

I've identified the following common examples of bullshit, common in our
field. I'd like to open up the discussion to the list, to provide more
examples, and any favorite examples of the below (or new) bullshit
arguments. I've listed advocates of the arguments, where these are
- Geoengineering allows continued emissions (BAU) - Freakonomics
- Scientists working on CE are offering it as an alternative to mitigation
- Terrestrial BECCS can be deployed at scale - Paris
- Termination shock is a likely socio-technical risk from SRM
- DAC is a viable strategy at for at-scale CDR (controversial?)
- SRM will cause monsoon failure
- SRM will be deployed at a scale leading to widespread drying
- Geoengineering could cause a snowball earth (snowpiercer)
- Moral hazard exists in the form conventionally described
- Greenfinger scenarios are likely (controversial?)
- CDR can be used late-century, as an alternative to near-term mitigation

Thoughts are welcome


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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to