I read the summary of the summary briefing of the RS article but not the full paper, so when I read the Guardian article I couldn't reconcile what it was saying with what I'd read in the briefing. I asked ChatGPT to critique the Guardian article based on the full RS paper. I generally don't like people sharing LLM outputs as it often feels like spam, but, in case anyone is interested, here is what ChatGPT "thought":
A careful comparison between *The Guardian’s article (5 November 2025)* and *The Royal Society’s policy briefing, “Solar Radiation Modification” (2025)* reveals a significant divergence in tone, emphasis, and degree of certainty. Below is a structured critique. ------------------------------ 1. Headline and Framing *Guardian headline:* *“Solar geoengineering in wrong hands could wreak climate havoc, scientists warn.”* *Assessment:* This headline implies two things: 1. That the Royal Society report *warns* of imminent or likely catastrophic misuse (“wreak climate havoc”). 2. That the danger lies primarily in *who controls* solar geoengineering (“in wrong hands”). However, *the Royal Society policy briefing* does *not* use such alarmist or sensational phrasing. It presents *solar radiation modification (SRM)* as a *potentially risky but research-worthy* area, requiring *robust international governance, transparency, and caution*, not as an impending threat of “climate havoc.” The report’s stated aim is to *inform governance and research frameworks*, not to raise alarm about immediate misuse. ------------------------------ 2. Tone and Emphasis Aspect Royal Society briefing Guardian article *Tone* Cautious, technical, policy-oriented. Urgent, emotive, conflict-driven. *Purpose* To outline policy principles and governance needs for responsible research and assessment of SRM. To attract attention through potential dangers and political controversy. *Main risk discussed* Governance gaps, potential inequities, and need for coordinated oversight. The risk of “rogue” actors or nations causing global climatic disruption. The Royal Society authors acknowledge risks but situate them within a *policy-development framework*, not within a narrative of crisis or misappropriation. ------------------------------ 3. Substantive Misalignment - *Royal Society:* The document explicitly *does not* recommend deployment of SRM. It recommends *further research*, *monitoring*, and *international governance* before any testing or use. It warns against premature or unilateral actions but does so in measured, institutional language. - *Guardian:* The article interprets this as a “warning” about SRM “falling into the wrong hands,” which frames the issue as primarily *security-related* rather than *governance-related*. Thus, while there is an overlap in concern about *unilateral or unregulated action*, the *Royal Society’s focus is precautionary and procedural*, not apocalyptic. The Guardian’s framing exaggerates the immediacy and scale of the threat. ------------------------------ 4. Governance and “Wrong Hands” The Royal Society policy briefing indeed discusses *governance risks*, but it frames them as systemic challenges: - Lack of international frameworks. - Potential inequities in decision-making between nations. - Ethical and political complexities. It does *not* discuss “wrong hands” in the sense of malicious actors or deliberate climate manipulation. Instead, it refers to *legitimacy, consent, and fairness* in governance. The Guardian headline mischaracterizes this nuance by anthropomorphizing the risk (“in wrong hands”) and implying intent to cause harm. ------------------------------ 5. Consequence of Misrepresentation This kind of journalistic framing risks distorting public understanding by: - Suggesting the scientific community views SRM primarily as a *danger*, rather than as a *research subject requiring oversight*. - Undermining nuanced policy discussions with emotionally charged metaphors (“wreak havoc”). - Reinforcing public distrust in scientific governance mechanisms. While newspapers must simplify complex topics, the Guardian article substitutes *ethical caution* with *alarmism*, thereby obscuring the balanced intent of the Royal Society report. ------------------------------ 6. Overall Evaluation Criterion Evaluation *Accuracy* Partially accurate; acknowledges the need for governance but overstates the threat. *Tone alignment* Poor; converts careful policy caution into sensational risk. *Faithfulness to source* Limited; selectively interprets governance warnings as dire global threats. *Public communication value* Moderate; raises awareness but at the cost of nuance and scientific credibility. ------------------------------ 7. Conclusion The Royal Society’s *policy briefing* advocates for *responsible governance and further research*, not for alarm about SRM being weaponized or catastrophically misused. Therefore, the *Guardian headline is not justified* by the text of the Royal Society report. It exaggerates the threat narrative and misrepresents the scientific tone of the source document. ------------------------------ On Thu, 6 Nov 2025 at 11:26, Paul Stansell <[email protected]> wrote: > The trouble is that "the scientists" don't say that "solar geoengineering > in wrong hands could wreak climate havoc", as the title of the article says. > > On Thu, 6 Nov 2025 at 10:59, Brian Cady <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Is this Guardian article below, based on the Royal Society work? >> >> Link goes to where I found it: >> >> https://www.ethicalmarkets.com/solar-geoengineering-in-wrong-hands-could-wreak-climate-havoc-scientists-warn/ >> >> Hope this is appropriate for this group, >> >> Brian >> - >> >> >> On Wednesday, November 5, 2025 at 10:35:57 AM UTC-5 Renaud de RICHTER >> wrote: >> >>> *Solar radiation modification: Policy briefing* >>> >>> https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/solar-radiation-modification/ >>> >>> >>> https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/solar-radiation-modification/summary-briefing/ >>> >>> https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/solar-radiation-modification/solar-radiation-modification-policy-briefing.pdf >>> 112 >>> pages >>> Issued: October 2025 DES9201_1 >>> ISBN: 978-1-78252-803-6 >>> © The Royal Society >>> >>> *Contents* >>> Abbreviations 5 >>> Executive summary 6 >>> Chapter 1: What is Solar Radiation Modification and why is it of current >>> interest? 10 >>> 1.1 Climate interventions 13 >>> 1.2 Briefing focus 14 >>> 1.3 Introduction to SRM techniques 15 >>> 1.4 Synopsis 16 >>> Chapter 2: SRM basic science and scenarios 18 >>> 2.1 The basic science of SRM 18 >>> 2.2 Idealised scenarios of SRM deployment 19 >>> Chapter 3: What are the different SRM techniques? 26 >>> 3.1 Main SRM techniques 26 >>> 3.2 Other SRM techniques 36 >>> 3.3 Estimated costs of different SRM techniques 38 >>> Chapter 4: How accurately can we understand the effects of SRM? 40 >>> 4.1 Stratospheric Aerosol Injection 40 >>> 4.2 Marine cloud brightening 44 >>> Chapter 5: How effective could SRM techniques be at cooling the planet, >>> and in what timeframes? 48 >>> 5.1 Effective radiative forcing due to SRM 48 >>> 5.2 Impact of SRM on surface temperature 51 >>> 5.3 Detectability of the effects of SRM 52 >>> 5.4 Effects of cessation of SRM 56 >>> Chapter 6: What are the key risks and effects on regional climate from >>> the use of SRM? 59 >>> 6.1 Regional temperature 59 >>> 6.2 Regional precipitation 64 >>> 6.3 Stratospheric ozone 70 >>> 6.4 Modes of variability 71 >>> 6.5 Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation 74 >>> 6.6 Sea level rise 75 >>> Chapter 7: What are the risks of SRM on components of the Earth System, >>> relative to the risks of climate change without SRM? 79 >>> 7.1. Introduction 79 >>> 7.2 The terrestrial biosphere 79 >>> 7.2.1 Global Net Primary Productivity 79 >>> 7.2.3 Crops 83 >>> 7.2.4 Wildfires 84 >>> 7.3 The marine biosphere 85 >>> 7.4 The cryosphere 87 >>> Chapter 8: An overview of SRM governance – recent developments, >>> governance principles, and practical challenges 90 >>> 8.1 International and domestic governance efforts 91 >>> 8.2 Voluntary research governance principles 92 >>> 8.3 Overview of SRM field experiments 95 >>> 8.4 Research governance challenges for project teams and institutions 98 >>> 8.5 International governance challenges 99 >>> 8.6 Governance conclusions 101 >>> Conclusions 102 >>> Annexes 104 >>> CONTENTS >>> 4 >>> >> -- >> 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 visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/fa680dac-73a8-4391-9add-7346325b79fdn%40googlegroups.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/fa680dac-73a8-4391-9add-7346325b79fdn%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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAMJKaZxYdR_jNu%2BJ-NGXA2Rc6wuGUWZ8h1p%3DbzYxxC%2B6hj5a8g%40mail.gmail.com.
