mail.com; gh...@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering and Non-Ideal Theory
The point, obviously, was not to "equate" SRM or CDR with any of those things,
but to show by uncontroversial examples that your claim (i.e., that we "must
carefully evaluate all alternative
ow <dmor...@gmail.com >
> *To:* geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com >
> *Cc:* gh...@sbcglobal.net
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 1, 2016 5:48 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Geoengineering and Non-Ideal Theory
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 5:29:34 PM UTC-5, Greg
: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Cc: gh...@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2016 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering and Non-Ideal Theory
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 5:29:34 PM UTC-5, Greg Rau wrote:
"Some acts are beyond the pale: they ought never
ted separately and
> comparatively on each of these points.
>
We agree, which is why we do this in the paper—as implied by the rest of
the abstract.
Cheers,
David
>
>
>
>
> ------
> *From:* Andrew Lockley <andrew@gmail.com >
>
kley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
To: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 8:23 AM
Subject: [geo] Geoengineering and Non-Ideal Theory
http://paq.press.illinois.edu/30/1/morrow.htmlGeoengineering and Non-Ideal
Theoryby David Morrow and
http://paq.press.illinois.edu/30/1/morrow.html
Geoengineering and Non-Ideal Theory
by David Morrow and Toby Svoboda
Some acts are beyond the pale: they ought never to be done, except perhaps
in the most dire emergencies. Other acts are wrong in a less stringent
sense: they would never be done
