Jim, I share your concerns over the question of "*does a con artist describe themselves as a con artist??):".* If they did, it would be something of a limiting factor in attracting donations to cover their salaries. Would you agree? BTW, how is your "peasant farming cools the planet" geoengineering concept shaping up? Holly, I think your objective view of that event is a credit to this field. I appreciated the linking of ETCs' efforts with the gross overreaction by a surprising number of main stream journalists and scientist who should have been able to spot themselves being played by a yellow journalistic fringe group as well as the limited scope of the event. The event simply did not meet the definitional standards of being an act of GE. What is the distinction between LARGE and SMALL??? Is small scale farming a act of GE??? What percentage of the worlds' oceans did the Haida Gwaii OIF demonstration This topic is a duplicate of another discussion. <javascript:;> You were redirected here from a duplicate topic. <javascript:;> involve? This all sounds like small scale farming is OK, and not a form of GE, as long as one does not get wet doing it. Best, Michael On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:54:57 AM UTC-8, JimETC wrote:
> Hi Holly > > Thanks for the interesting paper and comments below > > Regarding whether a cook describes themself as a cook or an engineer > describes themself as an engineer (does a con artist describe themselves as > a con artist??): I think you maybe give a little too much credence to John > Disney's after-the-fact claim that " I never once heard the term > ‘geoengineering’.". Of course its important to take your interview subjects > at their word and give them the benefit of the doubt but John Disney had > worked for many years with his colleague Russ George whose previous iron > fertilization endeavours with Planktos have been widely and very commonly > described as geoengineering going back to at least 2003. I find it very > surprising that John Disney would not have heard this word associated with > ocean fertilization. Russ George himself certainly knew his own work was > commonly described as geoengineering. Until last year Russ was the main > mover behind HSRC, he appears to have written all of their public > materials, owned a majority of the company, chaired the board and seemingly > made all the key decisions until he became too much of a liability for the > Old Massett band council to be associated with. All the deliberate framing > of 'village science' and 'stewardship of ocean pastures' is 100% Russ > George PR talk. > > The 'village science' framing is especially open to question as to its > authenticity. As I understand it from reports out of the village and what > names were publically shared almost the entire crew of the Ocean Pearl was > non-Haida, - the same is true of its past and present day to day > leadership, The 'research' and most of the company activities was carried > out in Vancouver (not in old Massett). An account of what happened in the > village by Gloria Tauber which you can read on p4 of the attached > newsletter describes that the crew had been assembled and contracts signed > before the village even learned about the scheme. let alone voted on it. I > just noticed that Gloria has also posted an extensive response on your > original piece that gives a bit more of the 'village perspective'. > > a few other small points: > > You quote an interview subject (Macnamee?) as describing the research > purpose of the ocean fertilization event to be answering the question “Does > adding a trace amount of iron to an > HNLC[1]<http://geoengineeringourclimate.com/2014/01/14/village-science-meets-global-discourse-case-study/#_ftn1> > ocean > eddy located in a known salmon migration route cause phytoplankton to grow, > and if so, what are the resulting environmental benefits or costs?”. Once > again this is an after-the-fact description. As far as i'm aware no > research protocols were ever made available to the scientific community > (and many asked for them once teh matter became public) around the event > itself indeed John Disney, Russ George and others didn't describe the iron > dump as 'research' so much as a commercial deployment - it was sold to the > village as a carbon credit scheme that would return monies almost > immediately and as a salmon restoration scheme - not simply a research > voyage. it may have been sold to funding agencies as a research activity in > order to get monies for staff (the subject of a dispute with NRCan as best > i understand) and to borrow monitoring equipment. It woudl be good to see > the research protocols. > > You also report, based on an interview with an HSRC principal (Disney? > macnamee?), that Environment Canada was notified - however Environment > Canada claim that when they learned about the plans they met with HSRC and > told them that they considered such an activity to contravene the Canadian > legislation for dumping at sea and that a permit would be required - which > was never granted (or applied for?). This is the basis on which Environment > Canada later launched an investigation and raided HSRC's offices to seize > evidence. (HSRC disputes Environment Canada's legal interpretation) > > I also somewhat disagree with you characterisation of ETC Group's role - > but I realise that you are just reporting Josh Hortons point of view. We > would have been happy to have chatted directly about what happened so you > don't need to rely on a third party mischaracterization. > > Otherwise a very interesting paper - thanks > > Jim > > -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
