The subhead under the title of Clive's *Nature* piece<http://www.nature.com/news/no-we-should-not-just-at-least-do-the-research-1.12777>" *No we should not just at least do the research*" accuses anyone who takes the position that geoengineering research should be undertaken of not carefully thinking through what they are advocating. I.e. it states: "the idea of applying geoengineering research to mitigate climate change has not been thought through". So Paul Crutzen<http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10584-006-9101-y.pdf>, to take an example of a mere Nobel prize winner who at one point in his career was the most cited author in the Geosciences, who might happen to read Clive's piece, would have to believe Clive means he has not "thought through" what he is advocating.
According to Clive in his Nature piece, anyone who believes "we should at least do the research" has a "naive understanding of the world" that is out of touch with "reality". That would be people like Ken Caldeira, or Alan Robock: Clive is saying these researchers are not in touch with "reality". According to Dr. Rapley, Clive actually feels "misunderstood". When you set yourself up as the guy who has thought things through as opposed to everyone else who hasn't, you really should have a bit more than Clive seems to be offering. People will be looking for something original and coherent. On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:33:50 AM UTC-7, Lou Grinzo wrote: > > Can we make contact with Hamilton and simply ask him about his thoughts on > these points? Speculating about them like this is likely to lead to some > wildly inaccurate conclusions. > > I think it's just as likely that his view is: [1] the political system in > some places, most notably the US, is horribly broken in terms of dealing > with CC, [2] a major part of [1] is the huge influence of large > corporations, [3] because of [1] and [2] we're playing with fire by > attempting geoengineering -- i.e. we'll make horribly wrong decisions about > what to do, when, how, etc. -- so we shouldn't even go down that road, and > should instead focus on fixing the political system and making the swiftest > possible cuts in GHG emissions. > > I'm NOT saying this is his view, merely that as I read his published work > and interviews, it's one possible interpretation. And given his fairly > high and (seemingly) rising profile, it seems like a good idea to find out > how he views this incredibly messy situation. > > On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:10:40 AM UTC-4, David Lewis wrote: >> >> The root of Clive Hamilton's "thought" on geoengineering appeared more >> clearly in this interview. >> >> When discussing the fact that The Heartland Institute and the American >> Enterprise Institute have endorsed geoengineering as a solution for the >> problem they have denied exists more emphatically than anyone else on the >> planet, Clive said: >> >> "They see it*—see geoengineering as a way of protecting the system, of >> preserving the political economic system, whereas others say the problem >> IS the political and economic system, and it’s that which we have to change >> *." >> >> And later in the interview, after Clive states that the risks to >> civilization that scientists such as David Keith and Alan Robock are >> concerned about are one thing, i.e. "*scientific risks*" whereas Clive >> sees an additional factor, which he calls "*political* risks", he says >> this: [edited to make my point clear] >> >> "*the danger that geoengineering becomes... ...a way of protecting the >> political economic system from the kind of change that should be necessary" >> * >> * >> * >> A way to interpret this is to say Clive wants our system of economic and >> political relationships as they exist* to fail* to cope with climate >> change in order that civilization will change in ways he thinks will make >> it more likely that the changed civilization will survive for a longer >> term. Another way to say this is he wants everyone in civilization to >> realize there is no way forward without a fundamental reordering of our >> political and economic relationships with each other, which is a necessary >> precursor to fundamental change. >> >> In "Green" philosophy, this lines up with those who say anything that >> allows this civilization to continue, such as discovering how to mitigate >> acid rain back in the 1980s for instance, is not the good thing it appears >> on the surface, because it merely allows the civilization to exist a bit >> longer which allows it to expand to a larger size, enabling it to do more >> damage to the planetary life support system, allowing it to take more of >> the rest of life on Earth with it as and when it collapses. >> Geoengineering, even removing CO2 from the atmosphere, in this line of >> thought, is therefore something to be opposed. >> >> If this is the root of Clive's "thought", it would throw some light on >> why he has taken the position in his Nature >> piece<http://www.nature.com/news/no-we-should-not-just-at-least-do-the-research-1.12777>, >> >> i.e. "no, we should not do the research" [into geoengineering]. >> >> On Saturday, May 25, 2013 1:12:10 AM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: >>> >>> http://m.democracynow.org/stories/13653 >>> >>> Democracy Now!/ MON MAY 20, 2013/ Geoengineering: Can We Save the >>> Planet by Messing with Nature? >>> >> Amy Goodman interviews Clive Hamilton with some recorded clips of Shiva, >> Dyer, Keith, etc. >> >> >>> >>> -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
