Oliver etal
Some more detail on the excised charts and the "why" from one person
(David Stern) whose charts were removed from the SPM is at:
https://theconversation.com/censored-ipcc-summary-reveals-jockeying-for-key-un-climate-talks-25813
Ron
On Apr 24, 2014, at 9:04 AM, Oliver Morton <olivermor...@economist.com> wrote:
> As far as I am concerned all IPCC plenaries should be in open session,
> and I have made this point on a number of occasions. The IPCC seems to
> feel differently, but there are enough people who agree and are inside
> the meetiongs that a pretty good account of what went on would
> probably be possible, if any news gatherers cared. Mostly, they/we
> dont
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Ronal W. Larson
> <rongretlar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Oliver etal
>>
>> 1. I support everything you say below.
>>
>> 2. I learned a bit about Bolin at
>> http://www.bolin.su.se/index.php/about-bert-bolin . Thanks for using his
>> name.
>>
>> 3. The current issue is how much of the week of political discussions
>> should be in "Executive Session" (not to be reported)? Is there a place to
>> view the rules? I believe most corporate boards would say that the meetings
>> need to be closed and minutes can be pretty skimpy. But most public elected
>> or appointed boards have strict rules on closure (personnel topics can
>> exclude reporters but not much else). I presume the latter model for the
>> IPCC? How do we learn how the consensus discussions took place? Or should
>> we not - so that something/anything can emerge?
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>> On Apr 24, 2014, at 5:21 AM, O Morton <omeconom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I kind of object to the idea that the SPM process constitutes "tampering by
>> politicians". First: it's the process, an intergovernmental process, that
>> gives the IPCC heft. It was baked into the design by Bert Bolin in order to
>> create a document that would fulfill politcal functions. If you don't want a
>> consensus document with heft that's fine. But if you do want one, you have
>> to explain how that could be achieved without having governments in the
>> process. Second: it sort of assumes that only the politicians bring the
>> politics. there's politics throughout the process of various sorts. The
>> politicians' are more overt. But they also remove politics (cf the removal
>> of preliminary matter in WGIII about ethics)
>>
>> best, o
>>
>> On Thursday, 24 April 2014 07:25:10 UTC+1, kcaldeira wrote:
>>>
>>> These figures should appear in the underlying chapters, which, unlike the
>>> Summary for Policy Makers, is not tampered with by politicians.
>>>
>>> The underlying chapters can be found here:
>>> https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/
>>>
>>> It would be interesting to do a comparison of the initial draft of the SPM
>>> and the draft as finally approved by governments, with some documentation
>>> for who objected to what and why.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________
>>> Ken Caldeira
>>>
>>> Carnegie Institution for Science
>>> Dept of Global Ecology
>>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>>> +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu
>>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
>>> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira
>>>
>>> Assistant: Dawn Ross <dr...@carnegiescience.edu>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Ronal W. Larson <rongre...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ken, Alan, List:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the lead on the "Science" story. I learned a little more.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently the week's political negotiations resulted in the deletion of
>>>> five figures and considerable text. It sure would be interesting to have a
>>>> separate "pirate" publication that only showed these deletions. Even
>>>> better
>>>> would be an added guide to which countries were most responsible for these
>>>> changes. Anyone already done this?
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 23, 2014, at 3:04 AM, Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As far as I can tell, Hamilton provides no citation in this work to
>>>> support the following assertion, other than his own book:
>>>>
>>>> Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a
>>>> substitute for emissions reductions.
>>>>
>>>> I further note the incongruity of reading a section titled "A world
>>>> controlled by scientists" the same day that Science magazine publishes an
>>>> article about how the politicians ignore the recommendations of scientists
>>>> when it comes to climate change:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/04/scientists-licking-wounds-after-contentious-climate-report-negotiations
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________
>>>> Ken Caldeira
>>>>
>>>> Carnegie Institution for Science
>>>> Dept of Global Ecology
>>>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>>>> +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu
>>>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
>>>> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira
>>>>
>>>> Assistant: Dawn Ross <dr...@carnegiescience.edu>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Alan Robock <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Geoengineering and the politics of science, by Clive Hamilton
>>>>> Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 16, 2014, doi:
>>>>> 10.1177/0096340214531173
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/15/0096340214531173.abstract.html
>>>>>
>>>>> The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
>>>>> (IPCC) include an assessment of geoengineering--methods for removing
>>>>> carbon
>>>>> dioxide from the atmosphere, or cooling the Earth by reflecting more of
>>>>> the
>>>>> sun's radiation back into space. The IPCC assessment signals the arrival
>>>>> of
>>>>> geoengineering into the mainstream of climate science, and may normalize
>>>>> climate engineering as a policy response to global warming. Already,
>>>>> conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute
>>>>> for emissions reductions. Climate scientists are sharply divided over
>>>>> geoengineering, in much the same way that Manhattan Project scientists
>>>>> were
>>>>> divided over nuclear weapons after World War II. Testing a geoengineering
>>>>> scheme, such as sulfate aerosol spraying, is inherently difficult.
>>>>> Deployment would make political decision makers highly dependent on a
>>>>> technocratic elite. In a geoengineered world, experts would control the
>>>>> conditions of daily life, and it is unlikely that such a regime would be a
>>>>> just one. A disproportionate number of scientists currently working on
>>>>> geoengineering have either worked at, or collaborated with, the Lawrence
>>>>> Livermore National Laboratory. The history of US nuclear weapons
>>>>> laboratories during the Cold War reveals a belief in humankind's right to
>>>>> exercise total mastery over nature. With geoengineering, this kind of
>>>>> thinking is staging a powerful comeback in the face of climate crisis.
>>>>> ----
>>>>> Hamilton correctly explains my arguments against a gradual ramp up of
>>>>> geoengineering as proposed by David Keith, and the lack of a rebuttal in
>>>>> Keith's book.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I just want to point out that even though I had a summer job at
>>>>> Livermore when I was a grad student 41 years ago, and have collaborated
>>>>> with
>>>>> climate scientists there since then on nuclear winter and geoengineering,
>>>>> I
>>>>> am not evil and determined to control the world with geoengineering.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
>>>>> Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
>>>>> Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
>>>>> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
>>>>> 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
>>>>> http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
>>>>> Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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 togeoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> Visit this group at http://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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O
>
> Oliver Morton
> Editor, Briefings
> The Economist
>
> O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O
>
> --
> 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/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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
