https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1476371211512913924.html
Poster's note: Twitter thread by Gideon Futerman (@GFuterman) You can check the original tweets on this link: https://twitter.com/GFuterman/status/1476371211512913924 *** Been thinking about solar geoengineering research lately and what might be necessary for us to get it going, so here are a few thoughts. They are only partially formed, so please don't take them as gospel, and I have relatively low confidence in them myself. 1. We need to promote better and diverse narratives of why we have an ethical obligation to carry out research. But, at least in the first instance, make these accessable. Op-eds, talks, social media engagement. 2. Those in favour of research need to get better at crafting a compelling social media message. The anti-research groups are much better than those in favour of research. That's partially because the nuance required to make a safe and just pro-research argument is hard to do... In 240 characters, but if we worked at it, that should be possible. Also, most pro-research tweets aren't particularly public facing, and instead tend to be more academic. Finally, I think more regular pro-research posting may be useful at shifting the conversation. 3. We need to get better at being more proactive in our promotion of research. Why isn't there content highlighting how #DontLookUp <https://threadreaderapp.com/hashtag/DontLookUp> shows the problem in not having a suite of possible responses to a problem and time buying techniques? Sure, this is getting better. The fictional consideration of geoengineering is important for this, but we need to do more to hype the conversation up more within the environmentalist community in particular. And we need to find ways of communicating that engage with their values. 4. Let's start explicitly showing the difference between those who are pro-research and anti-research. Let's not just respond to false claims of being "geoengineering evangelists". Let's self identify more as explicitly pro-research. But here's the difficulty, because this may legitimise those in favour of immediate and dangerous testing, or allow us to be strawmanned. So let's identify with the cautious, rigorous and yet unapologetically pro research as we were for the vaccine. 5. Finally, let's continue and amplify that in general an anti-research position is a generally privelaged and often deeply ideological perspective, and let's emphasise the massively negative consequences of such a position. And also the positive vision of research. 6. But then we can't lose the nuance, can't increase moral hazard, can't promote insensible research. It's tricky, and we can't ignore the sometimes important points those against research make. 7. So if I were to have a new year resolution for those who are pro-research, let's try and be more open about it, more active, more engaging. Let's focus on narrative s that tell safe and compelling stories about why research is necessary without... Jeopardizing the safety of research and the critical scientific mindset. It's hard, but this problem is necessary, and I have various plans in the works as to what I will do to start building youth support for safe research. • • • -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpacdq5QVQTBQvrcx0%3DH456o5K7NkO0AP0gm5aBu3uM0PQ%40mail.gmail.com.
