Hi, Michael -
That's great. Thanks for offering that..
Sorry, I don't believe I ever saw your previous posts about starting a
website - I don't always get to look at the geoengineering group daily
and then end up missing things. About a year back (late last July),
something I proposed was
: Sunday, July 24, 2011 15:14
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Jim Hansen : 1 to 2DegC and 20m sea level rise
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Dear fellow listers - sorry, I had no intention of causing a stir.
as it happens, my sense is that the perceived polarisation here
is less in reality than
Thanks, Andrew, his email's there, just after the phone/fax.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 5:08 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Jim Hansen : 1 to 2DegC and 20m sea level rise
To: nathan currier natcurr...@gmail.com
Hi Folks,
This thread has many aspects which point to the need for a full fledged
website dedicated to the full spectrum of GE issues. Hansen et al. is
showing a willingness to stretch the norms in scientific writing to maybe
express the severity of the situation in terms that the general public
Let’s first go back to the origins of this posting. Emily put up
Hansen’s article and referred to its discussion of sea level. Ken said
that he didn’t like its mixing of policy prescription with scientific
observation. Clearly, Hansen has published hundreds of academic
articles over the decades
Dear fellow listers - sorry, I had no intention of causing a stir.
as it happens, my sense is that the perceived polarisation here is less
in reality than some might consider. I think there is a large amount of
common ground.
I'd really benefit from a risk v benefit analysis too on each of
, July 24, 2011 15:14
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Jim Hansen : 1 to 2DegC and 20m sea level rise
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Dear fellow listers - sorry, I had no intention of causing a stir.
as it happens, my sense is that the perceived polarisation here
is less in reality than some might
