* did not cause harm* On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 2:27 PM Ron Baiman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi David et al., > > Not particularly anxious to wade into another debate over these issues but > I think it's important to set (at least my understanding of) the record > straight. > > In its latest Nevada launches Make Sunsets gave advanced notice and > received permission (https://makesunsets.com/blogs/news/3-launches), and > I believe Andrew did the same with his SATAN balloon launching experiment > in the UK. I'm not a legal expert, but I believe that in both countries > (certainly in the US) people are not (except in very special cases to > which this does not apply) for their intentions but only on the basis of > their actions. > > I understand that both of these were politically provocative actions, but > they did cause harm to anyone. So the issue is political. Do these kinds of > efforts serve to "move the ball forward or backward"? As I've stated in > other threads, I believe that Make Sunsets has moved it forward and (with > appropriate public regulation and monitoring and possibly using other > aerosols) could potentially morph into an effective private direct climate > cooling company. > > I don't know the details of Andrew's effort, and agree that the SATAN > moniker was unfortunate, but I tend to believe that anything that we can do > to spur awareness, discussion, and debate over the urgent (and as I think > most of us believe existential for human civilization) need for direct > climate cooling now (or as soon as reasonably prudently possible depending > on method ( > https://pdfhost.io/v/kUvEpsGdb_Understanding_the_Urgent_Need_for_Direct_Climate_Cooling_0209233 > ) is generally a positive contribution to our epochal challenge of a scope > and within a expedited timeline never before encountered in human history. > > Best, > Ron > > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 12:55 PM 'Hawkins, David' via geoengineering < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Of course it is perverse that our societies have failed to act against >> releases of GHGs but that is not a persuasive argument for those who >> believe there should be some form of advance review of outdoor SRM >> experiments. Like it or not, the need for social license for such >> experiments appears to have become a reality. And additional "unlicensed" >> experiments will increase the calls for some form of review. In my view it >> is better for the research community to engage on formulating a workable, >> efficient review procedure. That will require conversations beyond the >> research community. >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> >> on behalf of Stephen Salter <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Friday, March 3, 2023 12:35 PM >> *To:* [email protected] <[email protected]>; Jessica >> Gurevitch <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* Oliver Morton <[email protected]>; geoengineering < >> [email protected]> >> *Subject:* RE: [geo] SATAN >> >> >> Hi All >> >> I ask as an ignorant non-legal person, please could one of the many >> expert ethicists and political decision makers help me understand the >> difference between the release of very small quantities of medicinally >> benign material aimed at helping all species intended to advance knowledge >> which can easily be stopped as against the release of very much larger >> quantities of materials, already known to be dangerous, but profitable to a >> small number of very rich people. >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> >> *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley >> *Sent:* 03 March 2023 15:54 >> *To:* Jessica Gurevitch <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* Oliver Morton <[email protected]>; geoengineering < >> [email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [geo] SATAN >> >> >> >> *This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.* >> >> You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the >> email is genuine and the content is safe. >> >> 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 >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.businessinsider.com/15-fantastic-scientific-acronyms-2014-1__;!!NO21cQ!D8T7I_KwM9_S_ScC7Vl6gqT8FyNxyHnwU3M0HscawlZ7tL9H3zo2f-H3gUGF3iSuGBCdOW3w94wMyTYB$> >> >> >> >> 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/ >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/01/1069283/researchers-launched-a-solar-geoengineering-test-flight-in-the-uk-last-fall/__;!!NO21cQ!D8T7I_KwM9_S_ScC7Vl6gqT8FyNxyHnwU3M0HscawlZ7tL9H3zo2f-H3gUGF3iSuGBCdOW3w997G4zdI$> >> >> >> >> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04sdd*2BL-NkkbVvgaxnkBH5mE14A_V8kw7ZeFMVKp9-shQ*40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer__;JSU!!NO21cQ!D8T7I_KwM9_S_ScC7Vl6gqT8FyNxyHnwU3M0HscawlZ7tL9H3zo2f-H3gUGF3iSuGBCdOW3w9yrQRANg$> >> . >> >> -- >> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/54C5A1F4-D3FD-41D2-80E3-7D01CDC6FDFC*40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer__;JQ!!NO21cQ!D8T7I_KwM9_S_ScC7Vl6gqT8FyNxyHnwU3M0HscawlZ7tL9H3zo2f-H3gUGF3iSuGBCdOW3w9-yjYBKT$> >> . >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07tzg2o%3Dj1EodrjMmWi%2Br7t8k58iNF69xHMxQm0%3DN_WTQ%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07tzg2o*3Dj1EodrjMmWi*2Br7t8k58iNF69xHMxQm0*3DN_WTQ*40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer__;JSUlJQ!!NO21cQ!D8T7I_KwM9_S_ScC7Vl6gqT8FyNxyHnwU3M0HscawlZ7tL9H3zo2f-H3gUGF3iSuGBCdOW3w90eBrh3k$> >> . >> >> >> >> *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 >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://legal.economistgroup.com__;!!NO21cQ!D8T7I_KwM9_S_ScC7Vl6gqT8FyNxyHnwU3M0HscawlZ7tL9H3zo2f-H3gUGF3iSuGBCdOW3w9-L2Td8C$> >> * >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/7fd6218e-2dbd-4b9e-9e6f-534978831de9n%40googlegroups.com >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/7fd6218e-2dbd-4b9e-9e6f-534978831de9n*40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer__;JQ!!NO21cQ!D8T7I_KwM9_S_ScC7Vl6gqT8FyNxyHnwU3M0HscawlZ7tL9H3zo2f-H3gUGF3iSuGBCdOW3w9xP1aggJ$> >> . >> >> -- >> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-06kTANfhG1*2BDtnQAWh27UFv_6gcHGJ6Uziiz3*3Dd*2BmnqNw*40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer__;JSUlJQ!!NO21cQ!D8T7I_KwM9_S_ScC7Vl6gqT8FyNxyHnwU3M0HscawlZ7tL9H3zo2f-H3gUGF3iSuGBCdOW3w91yEjPJB$> >> . >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07cvA%2BGdEPGF%3DOWu6PPraWDqgxAKnD2wOca3Vm3%2BeO54A%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07cvA*2BGdEPGF*3DOWu6PPraWDqgxAKnD2wOca3Vm3*2BeO54A*40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer__;JSUlJQ!!NO21cQ!D8T7I_KwM9_S_ScC7Vl6gqT8FyNxyHnwU3M0HscawlZ7tL9H3zo2f-H3gUGF3iSuGBCdOW3w91ASH4DI$> >> . >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, >> with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an >> Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336. >> >> -- >> 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/PAXPR05MB8048211B3ACA3C6AA53B4FA4A7B39%40PAXPR05MB8048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/PAXPR05MB8048211B3ACA3C6AA53B4FA4A7B39*40PAXPR05MB8048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer__;JQ!!NO21cQ!D8T7I_KwM9_S_ScC7Vl6gqT8FyNxyHnwU3M0HscawlZ7tL9H3zo2f-H3gUGF3iSuGBCdOW3w9wIOWTq3$> >> . >> >> -- >> 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/MN2PR16MB303721BB9F6F78EA759AEB93B0B39%40MN2PR16MB3037.namprd16.prod.outlook.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/MN2PR16MB303721BB9F6F78EA759AEB93B0B39%40MN2PR16MB3037.namprd16.prod.outlook.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/CAPhUB9DHXhJ3hkxiV4znmj5oKzRpSCEJNkJb44N%3DHWsV8EZbLg%40mail.gmail.com.
