I am not sure  if this approach does not risk making the same mistake that
critics of geopengineering  do in using real examples of absurd arguments
and then generalize
to discredit others that are not worthy. I agree with some of your list but
I personally know that it cam easily be proven scientiifically that DAC can
be deployed at the scale needed
to achieve the objectives of CDR and do so withiout any unintended risks
that plaqued attempts like SRM. In fact DAC made it to your list because of
the same type of n on scietific attacks that currrently plaque approaches
like SRM. Non scientific statements like DAC will be too costy and moral
hazard arguments have been used to create accepted myths about DAC to the
extent it mde it on to your list(with equivocation)  .

 I have made the point before that scientific community supporting the risk
of climate change started the non scientific approach in response to
attacks by climate deniers by over stating what models could predict.
Because the climate system is a complex system by definition the
"butterfly" risk exists. The risk that our rapid rate of Co2 change will
initiate a mode that will cause great destruction definitely exists but it
is essentially scientifically impossible to predict because from the
currrent state a large number of future  paths exist which cannot at this
time distinquish between and state with any meanigful accuracy whci state
will actually emerge . This is just basic physics . So I claim
scientifcally it is our ignorance of what risk we are actually taking by
changing the CO2 concentration that is scientifically sound .  The claims
that the modelling community can make assessments of the future state with
scientically meaningful accuracy that reduces the existing risk of our lack
of knowledge of the future is not scientifically sound. From many
discussions i have had many agree with this but will not speak for fear of
giving comfort to climate deniers. In turn of course I know seveal first
class physicists that are offended by the climate predicitions made for the
reason I stated and thus the non defensible predictions. This is  partly
responsible for creating  the more scientific minded deniers. I employ
everyone to refrain from exaggerated and non scientifically defensible
statements. If science loses its objectivity we are truly in trouble.

I am a strong supporter of research on SRM and other geoengineering
approaches though I am skeptical that one will ever be able to remove the
risks their deployment might create for reasons related to the above
arguments. In fact I woulld like to be proven incorrect since if it were
the case it would mean we understand things much better than we do now and
that would be great.My reaction to the above is that it is easier for us to
design the future than predict it. By this I mean we can develop
capabilities like DAC and CDR and renewable energy and possible even SRM
 so we can actually damp out any mode that threatens to grow and cause
great destruction. That such an adaptive system is easier create than to
 be able to predict the future with any meaningful accuracy. Having said
that I want to be clear I also think modelling is valuable for it will help
us identify early signs of modes that if allowed to grow could destabilize
our climate. They can be used to create a so called planning horizon in
which time we can be confident how the system will evolve.

I hope we can all come together and instead of arguing with each other have
a scientificaly sound debate where we all seek the best knowledge we can
achieve independent of what that turns out to be. That is what science is
about and we should all commit to doing it.

On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I've been taking this MOOC in bullshit, from the University of Washington
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2OtU5vlR0k
>
> 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
> top-of-mind
> - 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
> (Paris)
>
>
> Thoughts are welcome
>
> A
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain
confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the
intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the
non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

-- 
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