Jessica I've taken on board your point that the SATAN branding (while perhaps usefully provocational in the UK) is more literally believed elsewhere - and therefore probably isn't appropriately cross cultural. I remember a similar problem with mitigation being described as a "Manhatten project", which outraged the Japanese delegates at the conference where it was discussed. But it's too late to change this branding now, partly due to the leak.
However, I take issue with "rogue". I'm not a rogue. I WANT regulation. I am INVITING regulation (or provoking it, depending on how you consider my actions). I am saying here (as I have said before) that I'll submit to any appropriate vetting body - one that's knowledgeable, fair, and respects any pledges of confidentiality and due process it offers. Without such a regulatory body, how am I supposed to know what constrains I should observe? I can't be expected to predict what might trigger individual list members to denounce me. Nor should I rely on government agencies lacking specialist expertise and jurisdiction. Nor on universities committees more eager to manage their institutional reputations than to govern science. Andrew On Fri, 3 Mar 2023, 15:38 Jessica Gurevitch, < [email protected]> wrote: > Weighing in here on this very interesting issue. I agree with Oliver > Morton that there is real value here, but I see the value as cautionary. In > reality, Andrew Lockley's experiment is not going to change the climate, > but it is a rogue implementation of a climate intervention. This makes an > emphatic point, as does the Mexico 'sunset' experiment, that the people > working on International Governance have no time to spare, because the > ultra-billionaires who might be tempted to do something similar at a larger > scale, and care not a whit what anyone says or thinks, could also initiate > interventions. As Andrew said, this was not illegal...at this point. I > think these two examples can add urgency to the argument that Governance > must proceed now, quickly. > As for the name that Andrew used for his project...it is ill-informed, as > is the snarky justification in this post. There are many people whose > belief system considers Satan a real entity, and it is disrespectful to > treat these widely held beliefs trivially. If you have any claim to value > diversity, inclusion and belonging, one doesn't ridicule or trivialize > deeply held cultural beliefs, in my opinion. Even if you yourself don't > believe that Satan is a real entity or force, Satan is nevertheless a > widely recognized symbol of evil, and evil is neither trivial nor a joke. > Unfortunately, as we see in Ukraine and elsewhere, there is very real evil > in the world, and trivializing it is arrogant and dangerously > mistaken, in my view. > Jessica Gurevitch, Distinguished Professor and Head of Forestry and > Natural Resources, Purdue University > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 9:07 AM Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I'm inclined to take what Oliver says as gospel. Instead of denouncing me >> for summoning SATAN, perhaps I can invite the congregation of the list to >> consider an alternative? >> >> It may be possible for some of the high priests of geoengineering to >> convene an inquisition, for vetting proposed experiments for herecy. A sort >> of pearly stage-gate, if you will. >> >> I would be happy to confess my impure experimental thoughts, if I could >> be assured that this would remain within the confessional. >> >> If my experiment's soul was weighed in the balance and found wanting, I >> would be perfectly willing to see it cast into the abyss. >> >> Approval from such a conclave would ensure that I could go ahead knowing >> I was doing only righteous deeds. >> >> Jim, Simone, Doug, David M., Oliver, Alan, Wake, Pete - will you (and >> others) answer this higher calling? I would be happy to go through >> purgatory before accepting your eternal judgement. >> >> A >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 3 Mar 2023, 11:09 'Oliver Morton' via geoengineering, < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I am not condoning Andrew's action, but I am not convinced by Doug's >>> argument that its results are necessarily harmful (though Doug says >>> "non-zero", I think it is clear that he expects a negative result). If this >>> leads to a fuller, open discussion of what sort of experiments are and >>> aren't appropriate, and of what if any legitimate means there might be for >>> discouraging the inappropriate, I think the community could find itself in >>> a better place, and with better understood courses for future action. I >>> think that requires constructive debate about pre-registration, applicable >>> forms of suasion that are in line with liberal assumptions about research >>> autonomy, national v international positions and more. >>> >>> It seems to me that if lots of serious people treat it as enough to >>> simply denounce Andrew, they may, by so doing, empower the backlash Doug >>> fears. An even tempered discussion about what was wrong with this and what >>> should have been done differently might help more by defining what sort of >>> envelope there should be around "respectable" experiments and what >>> appropriate measures individuals, the community and authorities might take >>> to discourage things outside that envelope. >>> >>> I now intend to go and read Andrew's paper >>> >>> o >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, 2 March 2023 at 14:58:26 UTC Andrew Lockley wrote: >>> >>>> Doug, >>>> >>>> I'll answer your points in turn below. I've removed Dan from the cc >>>> list as he wished to withdraw from the discussion. >>>> >>>> Andrew >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, 2 Mar 2023, 14:30 Douglas MacMartin, <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Andrew, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I second Dan, and your juvenile response to him regarding your choice >>>>> of project name should leave no doubt on anyone’s part that you don’t take >>>>> this subject seriously. >>>>> >>>> What specifically was juvenile about my response to Dan? >>>>> >>>> >>>> How is a decade of unpaid work not serious? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Is the project name sillier or less descriptive than these examples - >>>>> some of which are now scientifically standard? >>>>> https://www.businessinsider.com/15-fantastic-scientific-acronyms-2014-1 >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Had you actually been paying attention to the field as you claim to >>>>> have been, you would be aware that there are broad public concerns, that >>>>> trust is paramount, and that transparency is essential, as has been >>>>> consistently recommended in every list of recommendations ever written on >>>>> the subject – and your excuse of hiding while waiting for peer review is >>>>> pathetic given that what’s needed would be transparency in advance about >>>>> the existence of the test and the purpose, not about results. >>>>> >>>> I submitted a paper to multiple journals describing the airframe test >>>> and it was never even sent for review. I can't force publication or review >>>> of a paper. Other than this strategy, when and how do you think I should >>>> have announced the experiment? >>>> >>>> What do you think that the consequences of any prior announcement would >>>> have been? >>>> >>>> How well has prior consultation worked, when it was tried previously? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You also know that your test has zero engineering value to the field >>>>> since there’s no viable pathway to getting meaningful radiative forcing >>>>> through balloons anyway. >>>>> >>>> The purpose of the test was not to get "meaningful radiative forcing". >>>> It was to demonstrate an inexpensive, multi role aircraft that could be >>>> used for small scale experiments - much as scopex was intended, but with >>>> cheaper, expendable and swarming aircraft. >>>> >>>> I certainly do not know that balloons cannot be made to work at scale. >>>> I have already got designs in mind that may overcome the limitations >>>> revealed by this test. >>>> >>>>> There are certainly plausible engineering tests that could have value, >>>>> but IMO this isn’t one of them. >>>>> >>>> You've not had sight of the paper yet, AFAIK. I always value your >>>> opinions, but recognise these may differ from my own, and that they may >>>> change as more information becomes available. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So cost-benefit analysis… the benefit of your “test” is zero, but the >>>>> cost, in terms of potentially setting back perceptions of the field and >>>>> engendering a backlash against actual real legitimate science, is >>>>> non-zero. Hopefully people will appropriately ignore this stunt and >>>>> recognize that it is neither directly damaging nor actually relevant to >>>>> SAI. >>>>> >>>> I've described the relevance above. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> doug >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On >>>>> Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley >>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 2, 2023 12:58 AM >>>>> *To:* Daniele Visioni <[email protected]> >>>>> *Cc:* geoengineering <[email protected]> >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [geo] SATAN >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dan, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for raising your concerns, although an initial private >>>>> discussion would have been preferred. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I believe you have had sight of the abstract a few weeks ago, via the >>>>> GeoMIP conference submission. It's therefore surprising that you've chosen >>>>> now to raise this issue. Did you have any concerns with the abstract >>>>> specifically? If so, I would have welcomed your direct comments at the >>>>> time. I can also make a preprint copy available to you personally, if you >>>>> believe you may have comments that would help with revising the >>>>> manuscript. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As you were one of perhaps a very small group access to the abstract, >>>>> perhaps you could detail the steps you took to secure work that was of >>>>> interest to the media? I am sure I'm not the only one who's mindful of >>>>> leaks in the academic process. It would be nice to be able to submit >>>>> abstracts and drafts without worrying they will be illicitly distributed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think you may be implying concerns about the experiment name. Could >>>>> you perhaps describe why "stratospheric aerosol transport and nucleation" >>>>> was an unsuitable name for an experiment designed to test craft for >>>>> inducing, and later monitoring, stratospheric aerosol transport and >>>>> nucleation? If your concerns are with some other aspect of the work, >>>>> perhaps you could explain your views on what should or should not have >>>>> been >>>>> done? FWIW, I've never challenged your right to conduct research, nor >>>>> anyone else's. If you choose to challenge mine, a proper discussion of >>>>> your >>>>> reasoning would be good to hear. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Finally, I'm sorry that you regard me as "unserious". The facts might >>>>> cause others to reach a different conclusion. I've been active in the >>>>> geoengineering community for over a decade (I think you would have been >>>>> high school, when I started). Despite never being paid, I've built up an >>>>> h-index of 7. Simultaneously, I've supported this list, the CDR group, the >>>>> @geoengineering1 twitter handle, and latterly the Reviewer 2 Does >>>>> Geoengineering podcast - generally spending much more time supporting >>>>> other's careers than in furthering my own. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You are of course free to set up better community resource, if you >>>>> think mine are "unserious". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As a final note, you may wish to note that I've got a paper submitted >>>>> after revisions about the legitimacy of private geoengineering. That may >>>>> prompt a calmer discussion of views on the matter. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andrew Lockley >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 2 Mar 2023, 08:18 Daniele Visioni, <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Glad you had fun, Andrew. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For me, this is clear proof of your unseriousness and childishness - >>>>> not to mention the overall threat you pose to this research field as a >>>>> whole towards any kind of legitimacy. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I personally don’t want to be associated even remotely with anything >>>>> you do now or in the future, so this will be my last message on this group >>>>> before I unsubscribe. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2 Mar 2023, at 09:07, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/01/1069283/researchers-launched-a-solar-geoengineering-test-flight-in-the-uk-last-fall/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Researchers launched a solar geoengineering test flight in the UK last >>>>> fall >>>>> >>>>> The experiment, largely designed to test equipment, took place despite >>>>> deep concerns about the technology. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> By James Temple archive page >>>>> >>>>> March 1, 2023 >>>>> >>>>> sun shines through the clouds >>>>> >>>>> GETTY IMAGES >>>>> >>>>> Last September, researchers in the UK launched a high-altitude weather >>>>> balloon that released a few hundred grams of sulfur dioxide into the >>>>> stratosphere, a potential scientific first in the solar geoengineering >>>>> field, MIT Technology Review has learned. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Solar geoengineering is the theory that humans can ease global warming >>>>> by deliberately reflecting more sunlight into space. One possible means is >>>>> spraying sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere, in an effort to mimic a >>>>> cooling effect that occurs in the aftermath of major volcanic eruptions. >>>>> It >>>>> is highly controversial given concerns about potential unintended >>>>> consequences, among other issues. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The UK effort was not a test of or experiment in geoengineering >>>>> itself. Rather, the stated goal was to evaluate a low-cost, controllable, >>>>> recoverable balloon system, according to details obtained by MIT >>>>> Technology >>>>> Review. Such a system could be used for small-scale geoengineering >>>>> research >>>>> efforts, or perhaps for an eventual distributed geoengineering deployment >>>>> involving numerous balloons. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The “Stratospheric Aerosol Transport and Nucleation,” or SATAN, >>>>> balloon systems were made from stock and hobbyist components, with >>>>> hardware >>>>> costs that ran less than $1,000. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andrew Lockley, a research associate at University College London, led >>>>> the effort last fall, working with European Astrotech, a company that does >>>>> engineering and design work for high-altitude balloons and space >>>>> propulsion >>>>> systems. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> They have submitted a paper detailing the results of the effort to a >>>>> journal, but it has not yet been published. Lockley largely declined to >>>>> discuss the matter ahead of publication, but he did express frustration >>>>> that the scientific process was being circumvented. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> “Leakers be damned!” he wrote in an email to MIT Technology Review. >>>>> “I’ve tried to follow the straight and narrow path and wait for the >>>>> judgment day of peer review, but it appears a colleague has been led >>>>> astray >>>>> by diabolical temptation.” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> “There’s a special place in hell for those who leak their colleagues’ >>>>> work, tormented by ever burning sulfur,” he added. “But I have taken a vow >>>>> of silence, and can only confirm that our craft ascended to the heavens, >>>>> as >>>>> intended. I only hope that this test plays a small part in offering >>>>> mankind >>>>> salvation from the hellish inferno of climate change.” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> European Astrotech didn’t immediately respond to an inquiry. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Test flights >>>>> >>>>> The system included a lofting balloon filled with helium or hydrogen, >>>>> which carried along a basketball-size payload balloon that contained some >>>>> amount of sulfur dioxide. An earlier flight in October 2021 likely also >>>>> released a trace amount of the gas in the stratosphere, although that >>>>> could >>>>> not be confirmed and the system was not recovered owing to a problem with >>>>> onboard instruments, according to details obtained by MIT Technology >>>>> Review. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> During the second flight, in September of 2022, the smaller payload >>>>> balloon burst about 15 miles above Earth as it expanded amid declining >>>>> atmospheric pressure, releasing around 400 grams of the gas into the >>>>> stratosphere. That may be the first time that a measured gas payload was >>>>> verifiably released in the stratosphere as part of a >>>>> geoengineering-related >>>>> effort. Both balloons were released from a launch site in Buckinghamshire, >>>>> in southeast England. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There have, however, been other attempts to place sulfur dioxide in >>>>> the stratosphere. Last April, the cofounder of a company called Make >>>>> Sunsets says, he attempted to release it during a pair of rudimentary >>>>> balloon flights from Mexico, as MIT Technology Review previously reported >>>>> late last year. Whether it succeeded is also unclear, as the aircraft >>>>> didn’t include equipment that could confirm where the balloons burst, said >>>>> Luke Iseman, the chief executive of the startup. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Make Sunsets effort was widely denounced by researchers in >>>>> geoengineering, critics of the field, and the government of Mexico, which >>>>> announced plans to prohibit and even halt any solar geoengineering >>>>> experiments within the country. Among other issues, observers were >>>>> concerned that the launches had moved ahead without prior notice or >>>>> approval, and because the company ultimately seeks to monetize such >>>>> launches by selling “cooling credits.” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Lockley’s experiment was distinct in a variety of ways. It wasn’t a >>>>> commercial enterprise. The balloons were equipped with instruments that >>>>> could track flight paths and monitor environmental conditions. They also >>>>> included a number of safety features designed to prevent the balloons from >>>>> landing while still filled with potentially dangerous gases. In addition, >>>>> the group obtained flight permits and submitted what’s known as a “notice >>>>> to airmen” to aviation authorities, which ensure that aircraft pilots are >>>>> aware of flight plans in the area. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Some observers said that the amount of sulfur dioxide released during >>>>> the UK project doesn’t present any real environmental dangers. Indeed, >>>>> commercial flights routinely produce many times as much. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> “This is an innocuous write-up or an innocuous experiment, in the >>>>> direct sense,” says Gernot Wagner, a climate economist at Columbia >>>>> University and the author of Geoengineering: The Gamble. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Public engagement >>>>> >>>>> But some are still concerned that the effort proceeded without broader >>>>> public disclosures and engagement in advance. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Shuchi Talati, a scholar in residence at American University who is >>>>> forming a nonprofit focused on governance and justice issues in solar >>>>> geoengineering, fears there’s a growing disregard in this space for the >>>>> importance of research governance. That refers to a set of norms and >>>>> standards concerning scientific merit and oversight of proposed >>>>> experiments, as well as public transparency and engagement. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Advertisement >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> “I’m really concerned about what the intent here is,” she says. >>>>> “There’s a sense of them having the moral high ground, that there’s a >>>>> moral >>>>> imperative to do this work.” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But, she says, forging ahead in this way is ethically dubious, because >>>>> it takes away any opportunity for others to weigh in on the scientific >>>>> value, risks, or appropriateness of the efforts before they happen. Talati >>>>> adds that part of the intent seems to be provocation, perhaps to help >>>>> break >>>>> what some perceive to be a logjam or taboo holding up stratospheric >>>>> research in this area. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> David Keith, a Harvard scientist who has been working for years to >>>>> move ahead with a small-scale stratospheric balloon research program, >>>>> questioned both the scientific value of. the effort and its usefulness in >>>>> terms of technology development. In an email, he noted that the >>>>> researchers >>>>> didn’t attempt to monitor any effect it had on atmospheric chemistry. Nor >>>>> did the work present a feasible “pathway to use this method for deployment >>>>> at reasonable cost,” he wrote. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> “So in some deep sense, while it’s much more thought out, much less >>>>> cowboy than Make Sunsets, I see it [as] similar,” Keith said. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When asked if being provocative might have been a partial goal of the >>>>> effort, Keith said: “You don’t call something SATAN if you’re playing it >>>>> straight.” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Lockley stressed that the effort was “an engineering proof-of-concept >>>>> test, not an environmentally perturbative experiment,” and that they >>>>> obtained the standard approvals for such flights. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> “I’m unaware of any prior approval process which should have been >>>>> followed but was not,” he wrote in an email. “A review body may be useful, >>>>> if it was able to provide good-faith and practical feedback on similar >>>>> low-impact experimental proposals in future.” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Moral hazards and slippery slopes >>>>> >>>>> There are a variety of concerns about deploying solar geoengineering, >>>>> including the danger that carrying it out on large scales could have >>>>> negative environmental side effects as well as uneven impacts across >>>>> various regions. Some fear that even discussing it creates a moral hazard, >>>>> undermining the urgency to address the root causes of climate change, or >>>>> that researching it sets up a slippery slope that increases the chances >>>>> we’ll one day put it to use. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Advertisement >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But proponents of research say it’s crucial to improve our basic >>>>> understanding of what such interventions would do, how we might carry them >>>>> out, and what risks they could pose, for the simple fact that it’s >>>>> possible >>>>> that they could meaningfully reduce the dangers of climate change and save >>>>> lives. To date, though, not much has happened outside of labs, computer >>>>> models and a handful of efforts in the lower atmosphere. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Several earlier proposals to carry out research in the stratosphere >>>>> have been halted or repeatedly delayed amid public criticism. Those >>>>> include >>>>> the SPICE experiment, which would have tested a balloon-and-hose >>>>> stratospheric delivery system but was halted in 2012, as well as the >>>>> Harvard proposal that Keith is involved with, known as SCoPEx. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has begun >>>>> conducting stratospheric flights, using balloons and more recently jets, >>>>> as >>>>> part of a growing US geoengineering research program. But its stated >>>>> intention is to conduct baseline measurements, not to release any >>>>> materials. One hope behind the efforts is to create an early detection >>>>> system that could be triggered if a nation or rogue actor moves forward >>>>> with a large-scale effort. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The challenges in conducting even basic, small-scale outdoor >>>>> experiments that carry minimal environmental risks has increasingly >>>>> frustrated some in the field—and left at least a few people willing to >>>>> move >>>>> forward without broad public disclosures in advance, perhaps in part to >>>>> force the issue. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Scientists routinely conduct outdoor experiments without seeking >>>>> up-front public permission, when doing so doesn’t present clear dangers to >>>>> public health or the environment, and reveal their studies and >>>>> peer-reviewed results in journals only after the fact. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The question is whether solar geoengineering research demands greater >>>>> up-front notification, not because the experiments themselves are >>>>> necessarily dangerous but because of the deep concerns about even >>>>> discussing and researching the technology. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Columbia’s Wagner says the field should err on the side of >>>>> transparency. But he also says it’s important to strike the right balance >>>>> between how much researchers must reveal in advance, how easily carefully >>>>> designed projects can be blocked, and how much support major research >>>>> institutions provide for an important area of inquiry. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> “This sort of thing is a direct response to other institutions’ >>>>> reluctance to proceed with even seemingly innocuous research,” he says. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04sdd%2BL-NkkbVvgaxnkBH5mE14A_V8kw7ZeFMVKp9-shQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04sdd%2BL-NkkbVvgaxnkBH5mE14A_V8kw7ZeFMVKp9-shQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/54C5A1F4-D3FD-41D2-80E3-7D01CDC6FDFC%40gmail.com >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/54C5A1F4-D3FD-41D2-80E3-7D01CDC6FDFC%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07tzg2o%3Dj1EodrjMmWi%2Br7t8k58iNF69xHMxQm0%3DN_WTQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07tzg2o%3Dj1EodrjMmWi%2Br7t8k58iNF69xHMxQm0%3DN_WTQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>> >>> *This e-mail may contain confidential material. If you are not an >>> intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. It may >>> also contain personal views which are not the views of The Economist Group. >>> We may monitor e-mail to and from our network.* >>> >>> *Sent by a member of The Economist Group. The Group's parent company is >>> The Economist Newspaper Limited, registered in England with company number >>> 236383 and registered office at The Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London, >>> WC2N 6HT. For Group company registration details go >>> to http://legal.economistgroup.com <http://legal.economistgroup.com> * >>> >>> -- >>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/7fd6218e-2dbd-4b9e-9e6f-534978831de9n%40googlegroups.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/7fd6218e-2dbd-4b9e-9e6f-534978831de9n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- >> 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 view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-06kTANfhG1%2BDtnQAWh27UFv_6gcHGJ6Uziiz3%3Dd%2BmnqNw%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-06kTANfhG1%2BDtnQAWh27UFv_6gcHGJ6Uziiz3%3Dd%2BmnqNw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07cvA%2BGdEPGF%3DOWu6PPraWDqgxAKnD2wOca3Vm3%2BeO54A%40mail.gmail.com.
