Re: [geo] Leaked policy draft of SR15 - what do you think?

2018-01-18 Thread Michael MacCracken 
It seems to me over-stated to say the report was "leaked". At this 
stage, a review copy was sent to:


(1) every nation in the world for review--and the US has since the 
mid-1990s made a copy available to anyone who wants to review it through 
a Federal Register notice (we could never figure out how to defend the 
draft against a Freedom of Information request, so decided to make it 
available to all (and there is no check that those requesting to 
contribute to the review are US citizens, so anyone in the world can 
request it);


(2) the couple of hundred expert reviewers--and virtually everyone can 
sign up for that if they are at all interested.


(3) several hundred professional, including industry, and NGO 
organizations around the world.


In actuality, the report was not leaked--what happened was that a media 
organization violated the notice on the report that it should not be 
quoted. The media organizations get to see it just like others, but are 
not supposed to quote from it--but to show they actually have a copy, 
they tend to violate this by including a quote and sometimes making the 
report available. [I recall on first US National Assessment said he got 
a leaked copy of a draft of the report and wrote a column on it; in 
actuality, the committee authoring the report was a Federal Advisory 
Committee and all their materials are public, so there was a copy 
available to the public at the host agency for the committee--but saying 
"leaked" generates more interest.


So, take a look and offer comments--focusing most on what you might be 
an expert on--and don't quote as the actual wording will in mnay places 
change in response to the overall review process, etc.


Best, Mike


On 1/14/18 7:53 PM, Douglas MacMartin wrote:


I don’t see this as “secretive”.  Peer review has its problems, but on 
the whole I’d rather see stuff peer reviewed before being made public, 
at least when there is likely to be public attention.


The first order draft had no shortage of factual errors; wouldn’t you 
rather make sure that things are correct before being released to the 
public and media (who don’t necessarily have the perspective to judge 
for themselves)?


I think it is generally the norm in science that you wait for the peer 
review before you publicly declare results (remember cold fusion 
anyone?)  I’ve never heard anyone accuse that process of secrecy before.


doug

*From:*geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *lou del bello

*Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2018 10:38 AM
*To:* geoengineering 
*Subject:* [geo] Leaked policy draft of SR15 - what do you think?

Dear all

As some of you may have seen, the policy draft, circulated among a 
selected group of scientists and policymakers, has been leaked to the 
press .


I was wondering what you make of the story: I am writing an article 
about it and looking for an expert take.


Mainly from a media point of view I think it would be interesting to 
explain why the IPCC is quite secretive about this report, which is an 
opportunity to introduce its political relevance, as well as scientific.


Best,

Lou

--

*Lou Del Bello*

*Mobile UK +44 (0)7900632250*

Multimedia journalist *
*
@loudelbello




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [geo] Leaked policy draft of SR15 - what do you think?

2018-01-14 Thread Douglas MacMartin 
I don’t see this as “secretive”.  Peer review has its problems, but on the 
whole I’d rather see stuff peer reviewed before being made public, at least 
when there is likely to be public attention.

 

The first order draft had no shortage of factual errors; wouldn’t you rather 
make sure that things are correct before being released to the public and media 
(who don’t necessarily have the perspective to judge for themselves)?

 

I think it is generally the norm in science that you wait for the peer review 
before you publicly declare results (remember cold fusion anyone?)  I’ve never 
heard anyone accuse that process of secrecy before.

 

doug

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of lou del bello
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 10:38 AM
To: geoengineering 
Subject: [geo] Leaked policy draft of SR15 - what do you think?

 

Dear all

 

As some of you may have seen, the policy draft, circulated among a selected 
group of scientists and policymakers, has been leaked to the press 
 .

I was wondering what you make of the story: I am writing an article about it 
and looking for an expert take.

 

Mainly from a media point of view I think it would be interesting to explain 
why the IPCC is quite secretive about this report, which is an opportunity to 
introduce its political relevance, as well as scientific.

 

 

Best,

 

 

Lou

 

-- 

Lou Del Bello

 

Mobile UK +44 (0)7900632250

 

 

Multimedia journalist 

@loudelbello








-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Leaked policy draft of SR15 - what do you think?

2018-01-13 Thread Andrew Lockley 
I'm not sure whether I qualify as an expert. I've published a few
semi-relevant academic journal pieces, and written a lot of journalistic
articles on new energy.

Here's my take.

Firstly, there has been no meaningful reduction in CO2 emissions, as a
result of government policies. Almost all the reduction in the developed
world has come from a switch to gas, and from offshoring heavy industries.

Unless we have a wholesale shift in the taxation system, from income/profit
to carbon, government will remain irrelevant in the global warming debate
(other than a funder of basic research).

However, I'm really not that worried about continuing emissions - and
here's why...

You probably got your first mobile phone around 20 years ago. Now, you
probably make 90pc of your calls by mobile. You probably got Netflix less
than 5 years ago, and you now probably watch 80pc of your TV through
streaming. You probably got your microwave oven 30 years ago, and you
probably do 80pc of your cooking with it.

Fossils are on the cusp of obsolescence.

The cheapest electricity in the world is gulf solar. Solar is now at grid
parity in many states and countries around the world. Solar modules are
halving in cost every seven years or so, and storage costs are also on a
similar experience curve. Even in the chilly, cloudy UK, solar farms with
batteries are already being built with commercial money, not subsidies.
This trend isn't going to change.

It's often assumed that fossil plant will be used until it conks out, but I
disagree. In 20yrs, solar will be around a quarter of current prices (not
all the costs are falling, only the modules and batteries). Nobody will be
digging up much coal to burn, when solar is so cheap. Batteries are great
for daily storage, but power-to-gas is likely to be essential for seasonal
storage. So, we'll still have thermal plant - but not fossil fuels.

Accordingly, GHG emissions will be minimal mid-century. Chiefly, livestock
and land use change will drive the residual component - and that's assuming
we won't be eating synthetic meat, crickets, or whatever (all fairly likely
options).

Anyway, that's my tuppence. I'm happy to hear dissenting views.

A


On 12 Jan 2018 18:51, "lou del bello"  wrote:

> Dear all
>
> As some of you may have seen, the policy draft, circulated among a
> selected group of scientists and policymakers, has been leaked to the
> press .
> I was wondering what you make of the story: I am writing an article about
> it and looking for an expert take.
>
> Mainly from a media point of view I think it would be interesting to
> explain why the IPCC is quite secretive about this report, which is an
> opportunity to introduce its political relevance, as well as scientific.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Lou
>
> --
> *Lou Del Bello*
>
> *Mobile UK +44 (0)7900632250 <+44%207900%20632250>*
>
>
> Multimedia journalist
>
> @loudelbello
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.