On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 6:53:34 AM UTC-4, Matthias Honegger wrote: > > See below interesting FT Magazine Opinion piece. > > Posters Note: The article is interesting as it focusses on crucial > problems and expresses a sentiment that I often sense in SRM and CDR > conversations. However, I'm unsure of the validity of its central point: I > doubt that all it takes is more engineering-oriented political leaders to > taking better policy decisions. Rather, I believe we all need to contribute > to critical but constructive conversations allowing for mutual learning > between the engineers, academics of all walks of life, policymakers and > thought-leaders of all kinds. > > What are your thoughts? > > I expressed mine in this WSJ oped- > Congressional Math By Russell Seitz
> Updated Nov. 11, 2005 12:01 am ET > > > At last count, Congress Assembled contains two physicists, two chemists, > two biologists, one geologist, 234 lawyers and an astronaut. This puts the > lawyers within striking distance of an absolute majority in the 538-member > Congress. No other profession approaches this 43.5% plurality, and, under > quorum rules only lawyers can construe, for they wrote them themselves, it > usually constitutes a de facto majority. > But look around: The sciences have a lot to brag about, too, and can be > pretty fierce in their anthropological identities... Not much has changed - in moist legislatures, lawyers still outnumber engineers and scientists by more than 20 to 1 > . > -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/918d0779-e4a5-4973-9b53-c3f1a9ec0fea%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
