Peter - I think that the risks of future climate change are sufficiently concerning that it would be premature to stop all research on some options on the assumption that other options are 100% guaranteed to suffice. I think that pretty much everyone who thinks we need to research SRM also thinks we need to research CDR quite aggressively. So when you try to set things up as an “us vs them” framing, I don’t think you are doing justice to anyone’s perspective that I know (and I think I can safely say that I know pretty much everyone who works on SRM). Relax; we’re all on the same team, and this isn’t a competition.
Doug From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Eisenberger Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 12:46 PM To: Greg Rau <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [geo] Climate science foe Lamar Smith - geoengineering is ‘worth exploring.’ The sophisticated opposition to climate change initiated by George Bush Senior is to appease by supporting imcreased knowledge and thus avoid the need to act. This is just the most awkward and least nunanced of this pattern -or may I say another example of how far from knowledge based our political dialoque has become . I have stated my view that those who make the case for SRM by diminishing the status and potential for CDR to address the challenge of climate change are unwittingly playing into the hands of those opposed to action. A coordinated community focussed on the threat and not their individual idea would insist that CDR be funded and aggressively pursued before pursuing SRM - or at least would begin every interaction with the statement that CDR is a much higher priority. On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Greg Rau <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: > > http://grist.org/briefly/climate-science-foe-lamar-smith-says-geoengineering-is-worth-exploring/ > > “Despite Smith’s endorsement of geoengineering, his opening statement made it clear that he’s still unwilling to talk about the reasons why the technology is being researched in the first place: “The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the viability of geoengineering … The hearing is not a platform to further the debate about climate change.” GR Just in case the climate change hoax is a hoax? -- 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] <mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]> . To post to this group, send email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> . 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 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> . To post to this group, send email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> . Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
