Hi Doug, I wish your statement was factually true but I can provide if you want many examples of people adovcating SRM using the status of CDR to justify its need . Furthermore with all respect even your statement that CDR is in the same state -eg need for research as CDR is just factually incorrect . CDR is ready to be implemented , it does not carry the risk of unintended consequences , and as opposed to SRM it can address the climate challenge whereas the best SRM can do is provide more time to address it. This is why I wrote that I too support research on SRM but do so making clear that CDR is both a higher priority and more advanced by far than SRM If we were as we should be all on the same team focussed on addressing the threat we all agree exists than all who support research on SRM would also make clear that it is a lower priority than CDR . Furthermore as i wrote the failure to do that will result in a diffusion of effort so that we will make incremental progress on many fronts without a commtted response on any single effort thus unwittingly delaying the critical large scale effort needed while we do research and thus losing precious time we can ill afford to do . Unfortunately this is not an academic issue and in the future experts will look at what we have done and what was really known at the time and come to their own conclusion. I hope we do not have to wait for that judgment and somehow develop the internal capability to develop a consensus on a prioritized plan to address the threat we face. At this time we need to go beyond letting a thousand flowers bloom which in itself is paradoxical with the argument that we have no time to waste .
I of course am willing to be shown that my logic is flawed and engage in respecful dialogue with you or anyone that would argue against 1 that CDR is higher priority than SRM , and 2 we need to have an internal effort to develop a prioritized program for addressing the threat we face. Peter On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Douglas MacMartin < [email protected]> wrote: > 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:geoengineering@ > googlegroups.com] *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]> 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]. > 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. > > > > > > -- > > 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]. > 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. > -- 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]. 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.
