http://anthem-group.net/2014/01/18/what-would-heidegger-say-about-geoengineering-clive-hamilton/
What Would Heidegger Say About Geoengineering? Clive Hamilton
Abstract: Proposals to respond to climate change by geoengineering the
Earth’s climate system, such as by regulating the amount of
When we are on the verge of truly catastrophic climate change, I wonder what
philosophers of science will offer us as an alternative? Obviously, if they
wish to discourage scientists from even exploring possible geoengineering
options, they must have alternatives to offer, right?
On Jan 18,
Let's not start insulting philosophers of science here.
I do not believe that most philosophers of science see it as their role to
discourage inquiry, but rather see their role as doing things such as
analyzing how terms gain meaning and refer to things, how we can establish
the truth or falsity
Sadly not. As the recent discussions with ETC group of this list shows,
having solutions doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for publicly dismissing
others'.
Seems the concept of 'least worst' option hasn't permeated the climate
debate.
A
On 19 Jan 2014 09:33, Charles H. Greene c...@cornell.edu
Hi Brian,
The debate between David Keith and Clive Hamilton seems sterile.
Plan A, the agreed-upon best scenario, simply won't work to prevent at
least 4 degrees warming. Arguably the carbon budget, touted in AR5, has
been spent or very nearly spent already. See this short video from David
Thanks, John, for the response. I'm also an advocate of boosting soil
carbon with biochar but let me add a couple of comments.
As Ron Larsen points out, biochar brings benefits for atmosphere, soil and
energy. These should all contribute to providing incentives for its use. In
the soil area,
But philosophical and scientific approach must watch out for the hazards of
reification, as when emissions became a rate when most people think it a
quantity. The terms one picks may frame the whole discussion, as has
happened with global warming becoming the planet's near-surface air temp
Yes, I agree, and no insult was intended to philosophers of science in general.
My comments were in response to the particular diatribe that was posted. I do
believe that philosophers of science have an responsibility to offer
alternatives if they are going to take a stand against certain
List: cc Ken, Charles, Andrew
1. I finally found the full Sept. 2013 paper at
http://clivehamilton.com/what-would-heidegger-say-about-geoengineering/ - But
you have to find the small “pdf” symbol there. 33 pages with language that is
difficult for me as a non-philosopher (e.g. “Being”,
Before we concern ourselves too much with channeling Heidegger's ghost, and
echo-ing born-again Christians in asking what the great man would do, we
might want to keep in mind that Heidegger was a member of the Nazi party
and never publicly apologized for having become one.
Poster's note : of interest for several reasons
A) offers a possible new transport mechanism for lofting material
B) explains basic atmospheric dynamics not currently well understood, and
potentially relevant to GE
C) use of the gulfstream jet may help test monitoring and delivery
technology
Poster's note: of interest to those studying enhanced weathering
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/01/15/science.1244908.abstract
Published Online January 16 2014
Science Express Index
Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1244908
Isaac J. Larsen
Peter C. Almond
Andre Ege
John O. Stone
David R.
Brian,
I absolutely agree with you. We need agitation for CDR with improved
food production: from land, lakes and sea.
The current wisdom is one track mentality. But it is moving closer to
reality, step by step:
(1) Reduce CO2 emissions - by each of us reducing our carbon footprint
- and
13 matches
Mail list logo
