Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist
I have to say, I think those in this field are generally somewhat complacent about security. The animal rights movement shows what can happen. We shouldn't wait until after an attack to beef up security. Some of the larger conferences or specially convened meetings (eg Asilomar) may be a particularly appealing target for violent extremists. In this specific case, my suggestion is that for all the bombast, George's enemies are unlikely to ram his boat if it's firing warning shots at him. I've no particular love for Russ George methods, but killing his crew isn't the way to solve anything. As a first step, it would seem reasonable to have SSOs (ship security officers) or weapons on board research vessels where it's legal. A heavy machine gun costs only a few thousand dollars. It's a sad state of affairs when scientists have to be armed, but better armed than dead. The threat level seems to suggest this isn't an over reaction. On Apr 27, 2013 6:16 AM, David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Watson wrote a commentary on Russ George entitled *The Return of a Dangerous Ecological Criminal*http://www.seashepherd.org/commentary-and-editorials/2012/10/29/the-return-of-a-dangerous-ecological-criminal-574 published by his Sea Shepherd Society online October 29 2012. This Watson commentary seems to be all the Toronto Globe and Mail had as a source for Paul Watson's views on Russ George and *geoengineering* as described in their Nov 7 2012 article (I cited previously). Watson, in his article, states his Sea Shepherd Society did not make any judgement on the scientific merits, if any, of this scheme [Russ George's 2007 plan to use PLANKTOS to dump iron into waters west of the Galapagos Islands]. Watson, apparently, was anxious that Ecuadorian, American and International law *be upheld*. * (This is what his article states*). The Globe and Mail reporter couldn't talk to Watson directly because Mr Watson hasn't been seen in public since July when *he skipped bail in Germany*... As for ETC, their *Geopiracy: The Case against Geoengineeringhttp://www.etcgroup.org/content/geopiracy-case-against-geoengineering *webpage is still up. ETC concludes, obviously, that A moratorium on real-world geoengineering experimentation is urgent, apparently because we don't know what will happen if the *slightest thing* is done that ETC classifies as geoengineering. From their first paragraph, ETC takes geoengineering to be a* technological* strategy that could reduce or delay climate change, at least until social forces make a practical agreement [to mitigate climate chaos by reducing GHG emissions] Naturally,* no one wants that*. *Reasonable people, obviously, would want to increase or accelerate climate change, before social forces develop and make a practical agreement that might mitigate it? * From Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll: ***I don't think they play at all fairly,' Alice began, in rather a complaining tone, 'and they all quarrel so dreadfully one can't hear oneself speak — and they don't seem to have any rules in particular; at least, if there are, nobody attends to them *. On Friday, April 26, 2013 7:19:50 PM UTC-7, Ken Caldeira wrote: Does it matter to ETC or Paul Watson whether the intent is to increase fishery yields versus reduce the magnitude of climate change? Would the action be 'geoengineering' in the latter case but not the former? On Friday, April 26, 2013, David Lewis wrote: Paul Watson is known for going as far as attempting to sink ships in international waters that he feels are in violation of his conservation principles. -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist
Hi All We let farmers put fertilizer on their fields. Without this we would not have enough food. Some fertilizer drains into the rivers and gets to the sea where we know that too much causes nasty blooms and oxygen reduction. Two wrongs do not make a right but what is the difference between direct and indirect fertilization? We know that very large amounts of iron are blown by winds for deserts and provide essential nutrients to the marine food chain. It would be useful to know if this can be controlled to advantage and how much would be good. Stephen Salter Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs On 27/04/2013 06:16, David Lewis wrote: Paul Watson wrote a commentary on Russ George entitled *The Return of a Dangerous Ecological Criminal* http://www.seashepherd.org/commentary-and-editorials/2012/10/29/the-return-of-a-dangerous-ecological-criminal-574 published by his Sea Shepherd Society online October 29 2012. This Watson commentary seems to be all the Toronto Globe and Mail had as a source for Paul Watson's views on Russ George and *geoengineering* as described in their Nov 7 2012 article (I cited previously). Watson, in his article, states his Sea Shepherd Society did not make any judgement on the scientific merits, if any, of this scheme [Russ George's 2007 plan to use PLANKTOS to dump iron into waters west of the Galapagos Islands]. Watson, apparently, was anxious that Ecuadorian, American and International law *be upheld*. / (This is what his article states/). The Globe and Mail reporter couldn't talk to Watson directly because Mr Watson hasn't been seen in public since July when *he skipped bail in Germany*... As for ETC, their /Geopiracy: The Case against Geoengineering http://www.etcgroup.org/content/geopiracy-case-against-geoengineering /webpage is still up. ETC concludes, obviously, that A moratorium on real-world geoengineering experimentation is urgent, apparently because we don't know what will happen if the /slightest thing/ is done that ETC classifies as geoengineering. From their first paragraph, ETC takes geoengineering to be a/technological/ strategy that could reduce or delay climate change, at least until social forces make a practical agreement [to mitigate climate chaos by reducing GHG emissions] Naturally,*no one wants that*. /Reasonable people, obviously, would want to*increase or accelerate* climate change, before social forces develop and make a practical agreement that might mitigate it ? / From Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll: ///I don't think they play at all fairly,' Alice began, in rather a complaining tone, 'and they all quarrel so dreadfully one can't hear oneself speak — and they don't seem to have any rules in particular; at least, if there are, nobody attends to them/. On Friday, April 26, 2013 7:19:50 PM UTC-7, Ken Caldeira wrote: Does it matter to ETC or Paul Watson whether the intent is to increase fishery yields versus reduce the magnitude of climate change? Would the action be 'geoengineering' in the latter case but not the former? On Friday, April 26, 2013, David Lewis wrote: Paul Watson is known for going as far as attempting to sink ships in international waters that he feels are in violation of his conservation principles. -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist
A scientific expedition aiming to do ocean fertilization or geoengineering research would be playing into the hands of types like Paul Watson if they decided that having weapons on board was a defense. Watson is looking for an image the media he is playing to can use - armed rogue geoengineers fire upon unarmed protest boat would be better than anything he ever got from whalers he was harassing. Watson's possible target, Russ George, is the same man who not long ago was proclaiming that his publicly traded company *expects to have a cold-fusion heater ready for market as soon as 2007*. (Look under the subhead Cold Fusion on* this webpagehttp://www.newenergymovement.org/recapsa-cofeii.php?p=recapsa.php )*. This time, the bottle of snake oil that Mr. George is selling may have an actual ingredient in it, i.e. a large salmon run may indeed show up for the Haida to harvest in 2014 as a result of the 100 or so tonnes of iron compounds he talked them into dumping into the ocean last year. Scientists would want to be cautious about identifying themselves or their discipline with anything Mr. George is or is doing, i.e. defending Mr. George on the basis he is a scientist or that he is doing research unless they had carefully examined what Mr. George is doing. He sounds more like a very flamboyant consultant to would be ocean farmers than anything else. The senior political leadership of the Haida, the Hereditary Chiefs Council, and the Council of the Haida Nation, have distanced themselves from what one of their village councils is doing with Mr. George. They published this statementhttp://www.haidanation.ca/Pages/Splash/Public_Notices/PDF/Joint_Statement.pdf. It will be interesting to see if all the fish Mr. George is promising so confidently actually show up. On Saturday, April 27, 2013 2:53:22 AM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: ... In this specific case, my suggestion is that for all the bombast, George's enemies are unlikely to ram his boat if it's firing warning shots at him. I've no particular love for Russ George methods, but killing his crew isn't the way to solve anything. -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist
1) I generally agree with proposition that there is complacency about security. 2) I do not think it is a good idea to put heavy machine guns on research vessels. 3) I would extend the concern about security to information security. --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comwrote: I have to say, I think those in this field are generally somewhat complacent about security. The animal rights movement shows what can happen. We shouldn't wait until after an attack to beef up security. Some of the larger conferences or specially convened meetings (eg Asilomar) may be a particularly appealing target for violent extremists. In this specific case, my suggestion is that for all the bombast, George's enemies are unlikely to ram his boat if it's firing warning shots at him. I've no particular love for Russ George methods, but killing his crew isn't the way to solve anything. As a first step, it would seem reasonable to have SSOs (ship security officers) or weapons on board research vessels where it's legal. A heavy machine gun costs only a few thousand dollars. It's a sad state of affairs when scientists have to be armed, but better armed than dead. The threat level seems to suggest this isn't an over reaction. On Apr 27, 2013 6:16 AM, David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Watson wrote a commentary on Russ George entitled *The Return of a Dangerous Ecological Criminal*http://www.seashepherd.org/commentary-and-editorials/2012/10/29/the-return-of-a-dangerous-ecological-criminal-574 published by his Sea Shepherd Society online October 29 2012. This Watson commentary seems to be all the Toronto Globe and Mail had as a source for Paul Watson's views on Russ George and *geoengineering* as described in their Nov 7 2012 article (I cited previously). Watson, in his article, states his Sea Shepherd Society did not make any judgement on the scientific merits, if any, of this scheme [Russ George's 2007 plan to use PLANKTOS to dump iron into waters west of the Galapagos Islands]. Watson, apparently, was anxious that Ecuadorian, American and International law *be upheld*. * (This is what his article states*). The Globe and Mail reporter couldn't talk to Watson directly because Mr Watson hasn't been seen in public since July when *he skipped bail in Germany*... As for ETC, their *Geopiracy: The Case against Geoengineeringhttp://www.etcgroup.org/content/geopiracy-case-against-geoengineering *webpage is still up. ETC concludes, obviously, that A moratorium on real-world geoengineering experimentation is urgent, apparently because we don't know what will happen if the *slightest thing* is done that ETC classifies as geoengineering. From their first paragraph, ETC takes geoengineering to be a* technological* strategy that could reduce or delay climate change, at least until social forces make a practical agreement [to mitigate climate chaos by reducing GHG emissions] Naturally,* no one wants that*. *Reasonable people, obviously, would want to increase or accelerate climate change, before social forces develop and make a practical agreement that might mitigate it? * From Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll: ***I don't think they play at all fairly,' Alice began, in rather a complaining tone, 'and they all quarrel so dreadfully one can't hear oneself speak — and they don't seem to have any rules in particular; at least, if there are, nobody attends to them *. On Friday, April 26, 2013 7:19:50 PM UTC-7, Ken Caldeira wrote: Does it matter to ETC or Paul Watson whether the intent is to increase fishery yields versus reduce the magnitude of climate change? Would the action be 'geoengineering' in the latter case but not the former? On Friday, April 26, 2013, David Lewis wrote: Paul Watson is known for going as far as attempting to sink ships in international waters that he feels are in violation of his conservation principles. -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more
Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist
Or could the SRM crowd offer some solutions? Drop the iron out of the sky (planes, rockets, balloons etc, launched from secure land sites? Simulate volcanic dust?) Monitor the results from satellite and by sensors mounted on commercial cargo ships normally traversing the patch. Perhaps more importantly, get involvement and buy-in from the science community, governments, and NGO's to conduct carefully controlled and monitored field studies, rather than launch rogue, pirate operations (at indigenous peoples' expense). May I also suggest that adding ground limestone rather than iron to the ocean (Harvey 2008) might be a safer, less biologically impactful and hence less controversial way to mitigate CO2, though I can't promise increased salmon returns (but neither can George). -Greg From: Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com To: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com; Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, April 27, 2013 12:11:50 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Haida readying for second round of iron dumping in ocean - News - Times Colonist 1) I generally agree with proposition that there is complacency about security. 2) I do not think it is a good idea to put heavy machine guns on research vessels. 3) I would extend the concern about security to information security. --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: I have to say, I think those in this field are generally somewhat complacent about security. The animal rights movement shows what can happen. We shouldn't wait until after an attack to beef up security. Some of the larger conferences or specially convened meetings (eg Asilomar) may be a particularly appealing target for violent extremists. In this specific case, my suggestion is that for all the bombast, George's enemies are unlikely to ram his boat if it's firing warning shots at him. I've no particular love for Russ George methods, but killing his crew isn't the way to solve anything. As a first step, it would seem reasonable to have SSOs (ship security officers) or weapons on board research vessels where it's legal. A heavy machine gun costs only a few thousand dollars. It's a sad state of affairs when scientists have to be armed, but better armed than dead. The threat level seems to suggest this isn't an over reaction. On Apr 27, 2013 6:16 AM, David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Watson wrote a commentary on Russ George entitled The Return of a Dangerous Ecological Criminal published by his Sea Shepherd Society online October 29 2012. This Watson commentary seems to be all the Toronto Globe and Mail had as a source for Paul Watson's views on Russ George and geoengineering as described in their Nov 7 2012 article (I cited previously). Watson, in his article, states his Sea Shepherd Society did not make any judgement on the scientific merits, if any, of this scheme [Russ George's 2007 plan to use PLANKTOS to dump iron into waters west of the Galapagos Islands]. Watson, apparently, was anxious that Ecuadorian, American and International law be upheld. (This is what his article states). The Globe and Mail reporter couldn't talk to Watson directly because Mr Watson hasn't been seen in public since July when he skipped bail in Germany... As for ETC, their Geopiracy: The Case against Geoengineering webpage is still up. ETC concludes, obviously, that A moratorium on real-world geoengineering experimentation is urgent, apparently because we don't know what will happen if the slightest thing is done that ETC classifies as geoengineering. From their first paragraph, ETC takes geoengineering to be atechnological strategy that could reduce or delay climate change, at least until social forces make a practical agreement [to mitigate climate chaos by reducing GHG emissions] Naturally,no one wants that. Reasonable people, obviously, would want toincrease or accelerate climate change, before social forces develop and make a practical agreement that might mitigate it? From Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll: I don't think they play at all fairly,' Alice began, in rather a complaining tone, 'and they all quarrel so dreadfully one can't hear oneself speak — and they don't seem to have any rules in particular; at least, if there are, nobody attends to them. On Friday, April 26, 2013 7:19:50 PM UTC-7, Ken Caldeira wrote: Does it matter to ETC or Paul Watson whether the intent is to increase fishery yields versus reduce the magnitude of climate change? Would the action be 'geoengineering' in the latter case but not the former? On Friday, April 26, 2013, David
