Dear All,
I'm currently putting together an article for the Ecologist on
attitudes towards geo-engineering in the scientific and economic
communities and was wondering if anyone here could help.
I noticed this week that a couple of environmental economists
(Professors Alistair Ulph and Robert
Regarding Robert Socolow's idea that Lindzen's case may need more
adequate refutation:
Richard Kerr published an article in Science in 1989 describing
Lindzen's argument and his place in climate debate entitled:
Greenhouse skeptic out in cold. The article describes Lindzen in
the way some still
Although not widely distributed, I got so frustrated with an op-ed that
Lindzen was invited to submit to Newsweek several years ago that I put
together a point-by-point set of comments in response. Something like 19
points of difference for a one-page op-ed. Despite its length, I understand
it
Let me try again. Dick Lindzen has presented a science argument, to the effect
that one can infer the climate sensitivity from sea surface temperatures and
satellite measurements of radiation. This idea needs to be dealt with on its
own terms, it seems to me, for the sake of the climate science
Dear Ben,
I think you are confusing support for geoengineering research with
support for geoengineering. The AMS/AGU statements on geoengineering in
2009, http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/geoengineering.shtml , and
the more recent SRMGI report, http://www.srmgi.org/report/ , represent
I speak only for myself. Geoengineering represents THE contingency if global
warming continues for whatever reason. Any decent organization engaged in a
project with uncertainty develops contingency plans. Why not countries? I
recall my post doc work at MIT in 1957 on Project Sherwood, the first
To counter Lindzen's arguments, it bears to be remembered that decarbonisation
need stands on its own feet even without any climate warming issue, due to
ocean acidification. IF one rejects climate change, there is still plenty of
scope to argue for geoengineering such as Carbon Dioxide
Prof. MacCracken, list and ccs:
1. I thought your 2007 response (cite below) on Dr. Lindzen was really well
done. Thanks for going to all that effort.
2. Question #1 - was there ever any response from Dr. Lindzen? (or any other
denier?)
3. Question #2 - do you or anyone know how Dr.
Ron--On your questions:
1. I don’t recall there being a rebuttal to my 2007 response; easier I guess
just to ignore it.
2. Not other than what was in his Powerpoint as presented to the UK panel,
where he seems to suggest that it is just part of a large fluctuation, and
there have always been
Eugene:
1. Apologies for using the term denier on this list - probably should not
have. But in this case I am still torn on the appropriate label. I'd like your
opinion in this specific case.
2. My defense is that I have recently tried to read more of Dr. Lindzen's
material and found that
Hello Ben et al.,
I'm simply an interested citizen scientist and so I do not speak
for anyone. However, the interested citizen's view also needs to be
understood. Within democratic states, it will be the public opinion which
will most likely swing this issue
Ben's question of; *Is the economic/
It is a sick use of the term to characterize someone who disagrees with the
magnitude and urgency of the situation as a denier. That is equivalent to
saying, I am right, I know best and anyone with a different view is denying
my superior wisdom. That is a head shaker,
From:
The fact that Lindzen took the wrong view on smoking says nothing about his
views on global warming. PERIOD! Lindzen has a view. He does not call it a
theory. Hansen has a view; he should not call it a theory. The situation is
the science is premature. The hypothesis of AGW is not robust even if
In going around and giving talks on this sunshade geoengineering, I find
scientists with relevant skills much more interested in doing relevant
research.
A few years ago, my sense is that scientists felt this was a pariah
subject, and they did not want to engage in research relevant to the topic.
Ken, Ben, list,
Respectfully, I disagree with Ken. Whilst development of the science is
important, it is similarly important to develop the deployment capacity
(engineering). Salter especially is focused on this issue, as is the SPICE
team. It is non-trivial to deploy geoengineering from an
In part, because of Andrew Lockley's earlier suggestion about interview
format, we tried an interview format for the following videos where I acted
as interviewer:
Crop yields in a geoengineered climate: Dr. Julia Pongratz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhxzOUQVD38
Can we test
16 matches
Mail list logo
