Alan- Far from doing an "injustice", the Homer-Dixon/Keith acknowledgment that scientists have policy preferences is both refreshing and consistent with a large body of research from the science and technology studies community that shows that the notion of the disinterested scientist is a myth. For instance, you have published an article titled "20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May be a Bad Idea."
To suggest to the public that scientists have no prejudices or biases is the real injustice, because it simply isn't true. Scientists are people like everyone else. Pretending otherwise is to invite politics into scientific discussions in stealth manner. Far better to bring policy preferences out into the open as recommended by Homer-Dixon/Keith. Best regards, Roger Roger Pielke, Jr. University of Colorado On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Alan Robock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here is the letter I submitted to the Times. They did not choose to > publish it, so I share it with you. > > Alan > > Alan Robock, Professor II > Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program > Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction > Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 > Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 > 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock > > > To the Editor: > > While I agree with the call for more research on geoengineering > by Homer-Dixon and Keith ("Blocking the Sky to Save the Earth," op-ed, > Sept. 20), they do an injustice to the way scientists behave. They > characterize my research and that of my colleagues as "aimed to show why > sulfate injections won't work." That is not what we do. We perform > simulations of the effects of proposed schemes and report what we find. > We do not have a prejudice or bias about the results ahead of time. For > example, the latest work of my team shows that the excess acid rain that > would come when the sulfur eventually falls out of the sky would be so > small as to not be injurious to natural ecosystems. We need more > research on geoengineering, and it must be objective. Society depends > on us for information about the benefits and dangers of geoengineering > so it can make informed decisions. > > Alan Robock > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
