OK, not bad. Here's another line of argument, tell us how you would reply to this!
Genetic engineers have better tools than climate scientists; to put it bluntly, they know what they're doing. Unlike climate scientists, genetic engineers have direct physical access to the subjects of their experimentation at a scale that allows for high resolution manipulation observation. I'm saying this poorly, but it's different when the object of your tinkering is something that you can put under a microscope, then grow under a greenhouse. ᐧ On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm of the opinion that logic should be followed regardless of the > potential interpretation of so called outsiders. We have a clear and > concrete example, within the first ever deployment of a GMO, of climate > denigration. The view that GMO and climate engineering are Promethean > brothers can only be justified on a scenario by scenario basis, if that. > > In general terms, the best cross field comparison may be that of > bio-engineering <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_engineering>, > which includes yet is not limited to GMO work, being similar to climate > engineering. If we accept the Gaia Hypothesis that the planet is a self > regulating organism, and climate engineering attempts to modify that self > regulation, then such modifications are a form of bio-engineering. > Specifically we should look towards 'systems biology > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology>' as the closest analogy to > the aims of climate engineering. The below may help explain this view. > > Systems biology can be considered from a number of different aspects: > > - As a field of study, particularly, the study of the interactions > between the components of biological systems, and how these interactions > give rise to the function and behavior of that system (for example, the > enzymes <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzymes> and metabolites > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolites> in a metabolic pathway > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_pathway>).[3] > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology#cite_note-snoep05-3>[4] > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology#cite_note-21stcentury-4> > > > - As a paradigm <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm>, usually > defined in antithesis to the so-called reductionist > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionist> paradigm (biological > organisation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_organisation>), > although fully consistent with the scientific method > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method>. The distinction > between the two paradigms is referred to in these quotations: > > *"The reductionist <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism> approach > has successfully identified most of the components and many of the > interactions but, unfortunately, offers no convincing concepts or methods > to understand how system properties emerge...the pluralism of causes and > effects in biological networks is better addressed by observing, through > quantitative measures, multiple components simultaneously and by rigorous > data integration with mathematical models"* (Sauer *et al.*).[5] > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology#cite_note-sauer07-5>*"Systems > biology...is about putting together rather than taking apart, integration > rather than reduction. It requires that we develop ways of thinking about > integration that are as rigorous as our reductionist programmes, but > different....It means changing our philosophy, in the full sense of the > term"* (Denis Noble <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Noble>).[6] > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology#cite_note-noble06-6> > > - As a series of operational protocols > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_(natural_sciences)> used for > performing research, namely a cycle composed of theory, analytic > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_model> or computational > modelling <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_model> to > propose specific testable hypotheses about a biological system, > experimental validation, and then using the newly acquired quantitative > description of cells or cell processes to refine the computational model or > theory.[7] > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology#cite_note-kholodenko05-7> > Since > the objective is a model of the interactions in a system, the experimental > techniques that most suit systems biology are those that are system-wide > and attempt to be as complete as possible. Therefore, transcriptomics > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcriptomics>, metabolomics > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolomics>, proteomics > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteomics> and high-throughput > techniques <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-throughput_screening> are > used to collect quantitative data for the construction and validation of > models.[8] > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology#cite_note-Romualdi09-8> > > > - As the application of dynamical systems theory > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_systems_theory> to molecular > biology <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_biology>. Indeed, the > focus on the dynamics of the studied systems is the main conceptual > difference between systems biology and bioinformatics > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioinformatics>.[*citation needed > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed>*] > > > - As a socioscientific > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-scientific_issues> phenomenon > defined by the strategy of pursuing integration of complex data about the > interactions in biological systems from diverse experimental sources using > interdisciplinary tools and personnel.[9] > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology#cite_note-9> > > > As to the call for exercising great concern over GMO work, even those > within that field of work support high levels of caution. Elevating that > level of caution to the global scale is neither inconsistent nor > hypocritically self serving. It is simply logical and consistent with many > aspects of the precautionary principle as it relates to climate > engineering. > > Best regards, > > Michael > > *Michael Hayes* > *360-708-4976 <360-708-4976>* > *The IMBECS Protocol Draft > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m9VXozADC0IIE6mYx5NsnJLrUvF_fWJN_GyigCzDLn0/pub> > * > > > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Fred Zimmerman < > geoengineerin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In the spirit of making this discussion more realistic with regard to >> broader consumption, let me put the obvious argument on the table, which is >> that climate engineering and GMO are Promethean brothers in spirit (I say >> this without prejudice since I am supportive of both) and inspire >> skepticism from many of the same people. Accordingly, calls by the CE >> community that climate threats from hypothetical future genetic engineering >> techniques Should Be Viewed With Great Concern are going to be perceived by >> many outsiders as at least inconsistent and at worst hypocritically >> self-serving. As the saying from the American South goes, "that dog won't >> hunt." >> >> Just sayin': I wouldn't go there. >> ᐧ >> >> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I would agree that modeling for long-term climate impacts should be a >>> logical first step in designing/approving GMOs. Regretably, that simply has >>> not been done in the past. >>> >>> The first GMO to be released was an engineered (non-ina or ice >>> nucleation-active) form of * Pseudomonas syringae >>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudomonas_syringae> *which some believe >>> has reduced cloud formation rates in the areas where the organism has been >>> released. Regrettably, there was no attention paid to the potential impact >>> the released GMO would have at the cloud production level and so there was >>> no cloud related studies done before the release of the GMO and thus post >>> release changes in cloud formation rates can not be compared with >>> pre-release conditions. And, few people even know/care about the potential >>> changes and thus no further study of the effects will likely go forward. >>> >>> However, if the GMO version of *P. syringae* eventually crowds out the >>> * ina* gene equipped species (i.e. natural variant), at the global >>> scale, a reduction in global cloud cover and thus natural SRM can easily be >>> predicted. It is only a question of how much. >>> >>> Also, we have a number of remarkable C4 species which, if modified, can >>> rapidly change global scale environmental factors. One species which has >>> the potential to run amok is the giant bamboo >>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfDOMwFX5Hg>. If such a warm climate >>> plant were to be modified for a cold climate, snow ball Earth would be a >>> shoe in due to the vast amount of CO2 removal such a GMO product would >>> produce. >>> >>> I believe it is safe to predict and expect a wide range of proposals >>> which attempt to use the GMO short-cut in addressing climate change >>> mitigation needs. However, just one un-expected (un-predictable) outcome >>> could easily become catastrophic. Andrew postulates that "*This may >>> take thousands of years to happen*."; I would disagree, GMO induced >>> catastrophic changes can happen in a relative short time frame under some >>> scenarios. We simply need to look at the rapid spread of invasive species >>> such as the Japanese knotweed (*Polygonum sachalinense, P. cuspidatum, >>> P. × bohemicum >>> <http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/polspp/all.html>)* to >>> see what a GMO (equivalent) run away scenario may look like*.* >>> >>> To quote the above link; >>> >>> *"Rate of spread:* There is some information available regarding the >>> rate of spread of Japanese knotweed, though as of this writing (2010) >>> information was limited for Bohemian knotweed and lacking for giant >>> knotweed. After initial introductions, Japanese knotweed populations >>> displayed a 50-year lag time prior to* exponential population growth*. >>> As of 2006, spread rates in the United States were increasing rapidly, >>> while those in Canada leveled off in the 1970s [6]. In Washington, Japanese >>> knotweed was established in one county in 1960; by 2000, it was established >>> in more than 50 counties [127]. Along the Hoh River in northwestern >>> Washington, one Bohemian knotweed plant was transported downstream in a >>> winter storm event. Approximately 4 years after this event, 9,600 stems >>> were located within 20 river miles of where this plant established. Five >>> years after the flooding event, 18,585 stems were mapped within the same 20 >>> river miles [111].". >>> >>> The above highlight is mine. I have found this plant to be virtually >>> un-killable with the only recourse being massively strong concentrated >>> herbicide (Roundup) and that is only good for around 5 years time *before >>> the plant reemerges*. Some believe that the plant will soon loose all >>> vulnerability to even massive doses of the strongest herbicides. >>> >>> In conclusion, we currently focus our climate engineering efforts on the >>> various aspects of FF related adverse effects upon our environment. >>> However, we may well see, *in the near future*, a need to counteract >>> the adverse effects which GMO efforts present us. I would like to think >>> this scenario can be avoided, yet I have no confidence that it can be. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >>> >>> *Michael Hayes* >>> *360-708-4976 <360-708-4976>* >>> *The IMBECS Protocol Draft >>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m9VXozADC0IIE6mYx5NsnJLrUvF_fWJN_GyigCzDLn0/pub> >>> * >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Andrew Lockley < >>> andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The concern here is nothing to do with industrial approaches. It's to >>>> do with what happens to plants whether humans are in control or not. >>>> >>>> If we create super plants, and these go wild, they'll be drawing down >>>> carbon from the atmosphere regardless of whether they're in an industrial >>>> planet or not. >>>> >>>> Look at the global cooling and drying that the rise of grasses caused, >>>> as an example of what can happen. >>>> >>>> This may take thousands of years to happen, but once it's underway any >>>> changes may be unstoppable. >>>> >>>> I just think earth scientists should model it before crop scientists >>>> make a potentially catastrophic decision. >>>> >>>> A >>>> On 24 Oct 2014 02:36, "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlar...@comcast.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Andrew cc List >>>>> >>>>> See inserts below. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 22, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Most GMO to date has been changes to minor details such as pesticide >>>>> resistance, shelf life, nutrition or flavour. These are akin to minor >>>>> engine tuning, and have little or no effect in the wild. >>>>> >>>>> *[RWL1: OK - agreed. But there are plenty of concerns being >>>>> expressed about any GMO.* >>>>> >>>>> Root nodules and switching the photosynthetic mechanism are, by >>>>> contrast, like putting a V8 in a golf cart. They are both huge advantages >>>>> to the plants concerned, which could lead to them outcompeting wild >>>>> relatives. >>>>> >>>>> *[RWL2: This assumes they will be fertile. Many GMO approaches build >>>>> in infertility. But of course fertility may somehow “escape”.* >>>>> >>>>> The fact that nobody is linking these to biochar is simply because >>>>> they don't yet exist. It will be beneficial to make everything from these >>>>> super plants, biochar just being one example. >>>>> >>>>> *[RWL3: Agreed. All biomass users will go for the cheapest >>>>> resource. But I’ll bet there are plenty of researchers working on both of >>>>> your topics.* >>>>> >>>>> That's not my central point however. My concern is that these plants >>>>> could pull down so much carbon that they result in long term cooling, well >>>>> after global warming has been cleaned up, geoengineered or adapted to. >>>>> >>>>> *[RWL4: A little hard to grasp, given the standard assumptions on >>>>> limited land availability and some low potential biochar projection, but I >>>>> am willing to accept this might happen at some point. I have one >>>>> (non-list) friend who is pushing for biochar at an annual amount such that >>>>> there need be no reduction in fossil fuel use; one could still reduce >>>>> atmospheric CO2 at a rate similar to today’s annual increase. One >>>>> point therefore is that your scenario should be welcomed by the fossil >>>>> fuel >>>>> industry. Another “fix” would be to massively increase beef production, >>>>> with the attendant enteric methane release. And there are presumably >>>>> numerous gases available to counter too little atmospheric carbon. >>>>> And presumably those able to produce such super plants could similarly >>>>> produce competing “super-poor”plants, that somehow can similarly >>>>> out-compete.* >>>>> * I agree that, with any product able to grow exponentially, there is >>>>> a dangerous end game. And because biochar has lasting outyear CDR >>>>> capabilities (unlike say BECCS) that can have non-linear growth >>>>> characteristics, there is reason to be concerned about the end game. And >>>>> this is independent of your scenario, which only makes the prospect more >>>>> serious. But the production and placement of biochar in soil could be >>>>> outlawed or at least limited to land in serious non-productive shape. >>>>> Methane due to rotting could be encouraged over simple return of plant >>>>> matter to CO2. Also char has a long life, but it is not infinite.* >>>>> * Another way to look at a “too green” concern is to ask what caused >>>>> past “snowball” earths; what are the positive feedbacks in that negative >>>>> direction. Some were orbital Milankovitch extremes. I think (I am no >>>>> expert) there would a negative feedback here - with decreased biomass >>>>> production due to cold (that might similarly be enhanced with GMO). * >>>>> >>>>> I can’t say for sure what the level of risk is, but if nobody else can >>>>> either, this is likely to be a major problem. >>>>> >>>>> *[RWL: I am way out of my area of expertise here, but I believe most >>>>> biochar proponents would welcome the idea that improved biomass >>>>> productivity can be dangerously excessive.* >>>>> >>>>> I’d welcome further comments and discussion. >>>>> >>>>> *[RWL: Me too.* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Ron* >>>>> >>>>> A >>>>> On 22 Oct 2014 21:31, "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlar...@comcast.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Andrew, Michael and list: >>>>>> >>>>>> The following based on a few hours today doing Google searches - and >>>>>> many hours over the last five plus years trying to better understand the >>>>>> GMO controversy. Oddly, I voted just yesterday (against, based on what >>>>>> I >>>>>> thought expert guidance) on added GMO food labeling; this bill not >>>>>> considered well written, but friends voted the other way. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. I know of plenty of individuals and companies working in either >>>>>> GMO or biochar - but I have found none doing both. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. I know of several documents from biochar groups saying biochar >>>>>> should be decoupled from GMO. This concurring with Michael that biochar >>>>>> proponents are apt to see little benefit of supporting GMOs. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. I have read plenty of material both condemning and favoring GMO - >>>>>> but none that tie GMO to biochar. >>>>>> >>>>>> 4. There are a few groups who decry both biochar and GMO - but I >>>>>> can’t find any statement from these groups saying the two topics are >>>>>> inherently coupled. >>>>>> >>>>>> 5. Most persons/groups interested in reducing costs of biochar >>>>>> application would probably find little wrong with pyrolyzing GMO >>>>>> materials >>>>>> - either waste or main product. In fact, biochar production has been >>>>>> proposed as a prime method of removing invasive species. >>>>>> >>>>>> 6. I have been unsuccessful in learning more about the two GMO >>>>>> specifics noted (below) by Andrew (nitrogen-fixing root nodules and C3/C4 >>>>>> switching). But, I don’t see anything specific related to biochar for >>>>>> these two - nor why these two are different from other GMO activities. >>>>>> >>>>>> 7. I wrote this to this list on the 6th re a fantastic increase in >>>>>> annual growth - that seemed at first could be GMO: *I was >>>>>> concerned there might be a GMO aspect to polyploidy - but apparently not >>>>>> so. The opposite was claimed at this site:* >>>>>> *http://www.polygenomx.com/science/faqs* >>>>>> <http://www.polygenomx.com/science/faqs> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I’d appreciate anything citable on any of these seven observations, >>>>>> responding to Andrew. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ron >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 21, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> You are correct to be concerned about GM in this area and I, for one, >>>>>> have been concerned for some time that the natural biotic methods of >>>>>> climate engineering will be set aside in lieu of non-natural means simply >>>>>> for the* novelty* of those means and or methods. Genetic >>>>>> modification is such a novelty means/method. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no fundamental need for the use of GM for us to use the >>>>>> already profoundly robust carbon capture, utilization and sequestration >>>>>> abilities at this level of biology as nature has already highly perfected >>>>>> the appropriate methods for us. We can, *at this time and with >>>>>> today's technology*, create vast industrial level operations which >>>>>> uses the natural C4 respiration path to accomplish not just CO2 reduction >>>>>> but also provide us with vast supplies of critical commodities including >>>>>> the bio-fuel we need to end the FF era. >>>>>> >>>>>> What we may be facing on the GM side of this issue is simply the >>>>>> desire by some to obtain proprietary control over such vast operations >>>>>> through control over a set of GM-ed species. Again, *there is no >>>>>> fundamental need, beyond greed, for the use of GM to obtain climate >>>>>> engineering goals and provide global scale critical commodities outputs. >>>>>> The natural biotic method(s) are completely capable of meeting our >>>>>> climate >>>>>> engineering and critical commodity needs with the only immediate >>>>>> limitation >>>>>> factor being the need for large scale demonstration (i.e. Just Frigging >>>>>> Do >>>>>> It!!).* >>>>>> >>>>>> One primary defense against GM, in this area of concern, is to >>>>>> robustly show that there is no fundamental scientific nor societal need >>>>>> for >>>>>> cross species GM actions. This exposes the primary motive of cross >>>>>> species >>>>>> GM in this area of concern as being no more than that of the desire for >>>>>> the >>>>>> financial enrichment of a few bio-hacks. Also, as a relevant side note, >>>>>> crop GM actors are currently finding the legal/financial liability of >>>>>> cross >>>>>> field GM contamination is becoming highly problematic as the contaminated >>>>>> commodities are being rejected by major markets (*Woops!!!*). >>>>>> >>>>>> Due to multiple advancements in gene splicing technologies, we are on >>>>>> the verge of seeing wide scale bio-hacking coming onto the scene and thus >>>>>> the issues of GM ethics, scientific need(s), equitable distribution of >>>>>> risks/benefits etc, should be a high level concern within the climate >>>>>> engineering community. The marine microbial loop is the most powerful >>>>>> biological force on this planet and it is in our fundamental and >>>>>> collective >>>>>> interest, *as a species*, to protect it from wrongful GM, at all >>>>>> levels. Thus, it is not just the issues surrounding the technology but we >>>>>> must also work on the overall governance issue if we are to prevent >>>>>> irreversible damage to the primary production which supports life on this >>>>>> planet. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Intergovernmental Bio-Energy and Carbon Sequestration (*IMBECS* >>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m9VXozADC0IIE6mYx5NsnJLrUvF_fWJN_GyigCzDLn0/edit>) >>>>>> Protocol provides multiple means for maintaining biological and >>>>>> international governance control over a vast scale cultivation effort and >>>>>> thus drastically reduces the potential for rouge GM from being introduced >>>>>> and which will provide ample proof of the efficacy of the natural biotic >>>>>> process. The use of submerged marine bio-reactor tank farms can provide >>>>>> for >>>>>> the physical means of biological control and the tracking of all >>>>>> cultivars >>>>>> within the bio-reactor tank farm operations would be open access. Thus, >>>>>> the >>>>>> technology will be controlled through transparent governance means and >>>>>> methods. >>>>>> >>>>>> When I first started contemplating the marine biotic climate >>>>>> engineering option I realized the importance of maintaining a non-GM >>>>>> stance >>>>>> as, with proper scale, there simply is no need for the GM path. So, why >>>>>> even go there? >>>>>> >>>>>> One reason for the non-biotic climate engineering crowd to support a >>>>>> robust non-GM biotic climate engineering approach is that *the >>>>>> non-GM biotic approach **is the best way to show the lack of need of >>>>>> GM based climate engineering* and thus full support from all climate >>>>>> engineering sectors can help us prevent the potential globally >>>>>> devastating >>>>>> wildcards of GM from vastly complicating the overall climate engineering >>>>>> needs. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Michael >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:32:46 AM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm very concerned about two GM technologies, which don't seem to >>>>>>> have attracted the concentrated attention of geoengineers and earth >>>>>>> scientists. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Firstly, the creation of root nodules to host N2-fixing bacteria on >>>>>>> non-leguminous plants. This can fundamentally alter the nitrogen cycle, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> indirectly the carbon cycle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Secondly, the switching of C3/C4 photosynthetic apparatus. This can >>>>>>> fundamentally alter the carbon cycle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Both of these have the capability to create new plant types with >>>>>>> fundamentally higher primary productivity. Because these may outcompete >>>>>>> wild species, they may be uncontrollable once released. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm generally unconcerned about GM, but these technologies are >>>>>>> potentially severely dangerous. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In my opinion, they clearly fall into the realm of (potential) >>>>>>> geoengineering, and I'd be pleased if people on this list could devote a >>>>>>> little time to discussing these risks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you're looking for a more direct link, the biofuels / biochar / >>>>>>> BECCS angle provides an obvious entry point to the debate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> -- >>> 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.
