I totally get the idea behind gluing yourself to famous paintings. It’s the grotesque situation that we value paint on canvas in millions (of dollars, of course), while we head to extinction. Reading such articles on BBC again and again really made me think. I would glue myself to a painting too if i didn’t fear my career would go bust. Call me an idiot, Sir. You say that most people react negatively to such a move. But it’s just your pronunciation not a fact.
I have a beef also in general with calling other people unserious just because they have a different approach. It is very typical of conservative well established academics. Of course, this note covers not just picking a monicker or ways to raise awareness, but pursuing a research topic. Young scientists are all too often discouraged by senior ones. The basis being that the senior scientist never thought of that idea, or, is unable to compete in that arena. Regarding some saying that the Make Sunsets and Andrew’s campaign point to an urgent need of discussion and to rapidly paced steps towards global governance of SRM geoengineering. I’m quite sceptical. What sort of global governance of CO2 emission have we achieved through dialogue? Consider also the years spent and the time we — allegedly — have. To clue ourselves up, we just have to implement SRM etc. into integrated assessment models and see what is likely to happen. Btw. Andrew’s acronym is unlucky and off-putting to my taste too. But i view it just so that he got carried away, overstepped a line perhaps. Obviously, he was excited, and in that state of mind it could be difficult to think straight and get everything right, or, as intended. > On Mar 6, 2023, at 5:14 AM, David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 3:28 PM Ron Baiman <rpbai...@gmail.com > <mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> 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 is generally a positive contribution to our epochal challenge of a >> scope and within a expedited timeline never before encountered in human >> history. > > If your action raises awareness but almost everyone reacts negatively and > becomes less sympathetic to what you're trying to do, how can that possibly > be a "positive contribution"? It's like the idiots gluing themselves to > paintings. It just makes the public think less of the whole idea; they don't > know how to evaluate the science, but if the people arguing for X are > obnoxious and arrogant and dismissive, then most people are going to lean > against X as a result. > > -- > 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 > <mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAP%3DxTqOf1_RgzgYACCaYXq8-Xzh5C5SQTnBeYmB6Hh-V8GyJUA%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAP%3DxTqOf1_RgzgYACCaYXq8-Xzh5C5SQTnBeYmB6Hh-V8GyJUA%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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/2ABAAEE2-D92B-4E26-AB0A-2B388A595F53%40googlemail.com.
