Dear Alan,
I don't think it's so ridiculous. There is a lot of agreement about the seriousness of the situation, and that just reducing emissions is not the whole solution. Kind regards, John Alan Robock wrote: > Dear John, > > Don't be ridiculous. There is no consensus among readers of this > group. A few of you are completely gung ho, with no interest in > evaluating the risks as well as the benefits of any policy > recommendation, but that does not represent the views of very many. > > Of course, you are free to write any sort of "manifesto" that you > want, but don't claim that it represents a consensus of more than the > individuals that end up signing it. > > 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: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu > New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock > > > On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, John Nissen wrote: > >> >> >> Hi everybody, >> >> I have been subscribed to this group for well over a year, and have seen >> a great deal of valuable information produced. I have seen discussions >> and consensus reached. We have a great deal of expertise among us. But >> I fear much of our understanding of how to tackle the global environment >> crisis is being lost in the blogosphere. >> >> So I propose that we, as a geoengineering group, should work together to >> produce a manifesto for geoengineering. This would: describe the state >> of the Earth's climate system, identify critical risks, put the case for >> geoengineering, consider how side-effects can be avoided or minimised, >> and suggest when is the best time for geoengineering action. Otherwise >> we will finding ourselves saying the same things again and again over >> the coming months and years. And we need a reasonably solid position >> statement on which to peg further developments of ideas, which may be >> more speculative. >> >> A manifesto would allow particular members to contribute their >> particular expertise, and have it scrutinised by others from different >> viewpoints. >> >> I would be will to help in preparing such a manifesto, which would be an >> open document, but subject to editing control, perhaps on the lines of >> wikipedia. (Andrew might advise on this, with his wikipedia >> experience.) However it should be open to the latest thinking (and it >> would not be sensored in the way that sometimes happens on wikipedia re >> geoengineering). >> >> Cheers, >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
