Re: [geo] new article by Clive Hamilton
These figures should appear in the underlying chapters, which, unlike the Summary for Policy Makers, is not tampered with by politicians. The underlying chapters can be found here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/ It would be interesting to do a comparison of the initial draft of the SPM and the draft as finally approved by governments, with some documentation for who objected to what and why. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Ronal W. Larson rongretlar...@comcast.netwrote: Ken, Alan, List: Thanks for the lead on the *Science* story. I learned a little more. Apparently the week's political negotiations resulted in the deletion of five figures and considerable text. It sure would be interesting to have a separate pirate publication that only showed these deletions. Even better would be an added guide to which countries were most responsible for these changes. Anyone already done this? Ron On Apr 23, 2014, at 3:04 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: As far as I can tell, Hamilton provides no citation in this work to support the following assertion, other than his own book: *Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute for emissions reductions.* I further note the incongruity of reading a section titled A world controlled by scientists the same day that Science magazine publishes an article about how the politicians ignore the recommendations of scientists when it comes to climate change: http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/04/scientists-licking-wounds-after-contentious-climate-report-negotiations ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.eduwrote: Geoengineering and the politics of science, by Clive Hamilton Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 16, 2014, doi: 10.1177/0096340214531173 http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/15/0096340214531173.abstract.html The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) include an assessment of geoengineering--methods for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or cooling the Earth by reflecting more of the sun's radiation back into space. The IPCC assessment signals the arrival of geoengineering into the mainstream of climate science, and may normalize climate engineering as a policy response to global warming. Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute for emissions reductions. Climate scientists are sharply divided over geoengineering, in much the same way that Manhattan Project scientists were divided over nuclear weapons after World War II. Testing a geoengineering scheme, such as sulfate aerosol spraying, is inherently difficult. Deployment would make political decision makers highly dependent on a technocratic elite. In a geoengineered world, experts would control the conditions of daily life, and it is unlikely that such a regime would be a just one. A disproportionate number of scientists currently working on geoengineering have either worked at, or collaborated with, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The history of US nuclear weapons laboratories during the Cold War reveals a belief in humankind's right to exercise total mastery over nature. With geoengineering, this kind of thinking is staging a powerful comeback in the face of climate crisis. Hamilton correctly explains my arguments against a gradual ramp up of geoengineering as proposed by David Keith, and the lack of a rebuttal in Keith's book. But I just want to point out that even though I had a summer job at Livermore when I was a grad student 41 years ago, and have collaborated with climate scientists there since then on nuclear winter and geoengineering, I am not evil and determined to control the world with geoengineering. Alan -- Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock http://twitter.com/AlanRobock Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at
Re: [geo] new article by Clive Hamilton
I kind of object to the idea that the SPM process constitutes tampering by politicians. First: it's the process, an intergovernmental process, that gives the IPCC heft. It was baked into the design by Bert Bolin in order to create a document that would fulfill politcal functions. If you don't want a consensus document with heft that's fine. But if you do want one, you have to explain how that could be achieved without having governments in the process. Second: it sort of assumes that only the politicians bring the politics. there's politics throughout the process of various sorts. The politicians' are more overt. But they also remove politics (cf the removal of preliminary matter in WGIII about ethics) best, o On Thursday, 24 April 2014 07:25:10 UTC+1, kcaldeira wrote: These figures should appear in the underlying chapters, which, unlike the Summary for Policy Makers, is not tampered with by politicians. The underlying chapters can be found here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/ It would be interesting to do a comparison of the initial draft of the SPM and the draft as finally approved by governments, with some documentation for who objected to what and why. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu javascript: http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu javascript: On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Ronal W. Larson rongre...@comcast.netjavascript: wrote: Ken, Alan, List: Thanks for the lead on the “*Science”* story. I learned a little more. Apparently the week’s political negotiations resulted in the deletion of five figures and considerable text. It sure would be interesting to have a separate “pirate” publication that only showed these deletions. Even better would be an added guide to which countries were most responsible for these changes. Anyone already done this? Ron On Apr 23, 2014, at 3:04 AM, Ken Caldeira kcal...@carnegiescience.edujavascript: wrote: As far as I can tell, Hamilton provides no citation in this work to support the following assertion, other than his own book: *Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute for emissions reductions.* I further note the incongruity of reading a section titled A world controlled by scientists the same day that Science magazine publishes an article about how the politicians ignore the recommendations of scientists when it comes to climate change: http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/04/scientists-licking-wounds-after-contentious-climate-report-negotiations ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu javascript: http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu javascript: On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edujavascript: wrote: Geoengineering and the politics of science, by Clive Hamilton Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 16, 2014, doi: 10.1177/0096340214531173 http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/15/0096340214531173.abstract.html The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) include an assessment of geoengineering—methods for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or cooling the Earth by reflecting more of the sun’s radiation back into space. The IPCC assessment signals the arrival of geoengineering into the mainstream of climate science, and may normalize climate engineering as a policy response to global warming. Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute for emissions reductions. Climate scientists are sharply divided over geoengineering, in much the same way that Manhattan Project scientists were divided over nuclear weapons after World War II. Testing a geoengineering scheme, such as sulfate aerosol spraying, is inherently difficult. Deployment would make political decision makers highly dependent on a technocratic elite. In a geoengineered world, experts would control the conditions of daily life, and it is unlikely that such a regime would be a just one. A disproportionate number of scientists currently working on geoengineering have either worked at, or collaborated with, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The history of US nuclear weapons laboratories during the Cold War reveals a belief in humankind’s right to exercise total mastery over nature. With geoengineering, this kind of thinking is staging a powerful comeback in the face of climate crisis. Hamilton correctly explains my arguments against a
Re: [geo] new article by Clive Hamilton
Oliver etal 1. I support everything you say below. 2. I learned a bit about Bolin at http://www.bolin.su.se/index.php/about-bert-bolin . Thanks for using his name. 3. The current issue is how much of the week of political discussions should be in Executive Session (not to be reported)? Is there a place to view the rules? I believe most corporate boards would say that the meetings need to be closed and minutes can be pretty skimpy. But most public elected or appointed boards have strict rules on closure (personnel topics can exclude reporters but not much else). I presume the latter model for the IPCC? How do we learn how the consensus discussions took place? Or should we not - so that something/anything can emerge? Ron On Apr 24, 2014, at 5:21 AM, O Morton omeconom...@gmail.com wrote: I kind of object to the idea that the SPM process constitutes tampering by politicians. First: it's the process, an intergovernmental process, that gives the IPCC heft. It was baked into the design by Bert Bolin in order to create a document that would fulfill politcal functions. If you don't want a consensus document with heft that's fine. But if you do want one, you have to explain how that could be achieved without having governments in the process. Second: it sort of assumes that only the politicians bring the politics. there's politics throughout the process of various sorts. The politicians' are more overt. But they also remove politics (cf the removal of preliminary matter in WGIII about ethics) best, o On Thursday, 24 April 2014 07:25:10 UTC+1, kcaldeira wrote: These figures should appear in the underlying chapters, which, unlike the Summary for Policy Makers, is not tampered with by politicians. The underlying chapters can be found here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/ It would be interesting to do a comparison of the initial draft of the SPM and the draft as finally approved by governments, with some documentation for who objected to what and why. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Ronal W. Larson rongre...@comcast.net wrote: Ken, Alan, List: Thanks for the lead on the Science story. I learned a little more. Apparently the week's political negotiations resulted in the deletion of five figures and considerable text. It sure would be interesting to have a separate pirate publication that only showed these deletions. Even better would be an added guide to which countries were most responsible for these changes. Anyone already done this? Ron On Apr 23, 2014, at 3:04 AM, Ken Caldeira kcal...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: As far as I can tell, Hamilton provides no citation in this work to support the following assertion, other than his own book: Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute for emissions reductions. I further note the incongruity of reading a section titled A world controlled by scientists the same day that Science magazine publishes an article about how the politicians ignore the recommendations of scientists when it comes to climate change: http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/04/scientists-licking-wounds-after-contentious-climate-report-negotiations ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu wrote: Geoengineering and the politics of science, by Clive Hamilton Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 16, 2014, doi: 10.1177/0096340214531173 http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/15/0096340214531173.abstract.html The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) include an assessment of geoengineering--methods for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or cooling the Earth by reflecting more of the sun's radiation back into space. The IPCC assessment signals the arrival of geoengineering into the mainstream of climate science, and may normalize climate engineering as a policy response to global warming. Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute for emissions reductions. Climate scientists are sharply divided over geoengineering, in much the same way that Manhattan Project scientists were divided over nuclear weapons after World War II. Testing a
